http://educate-yourself.org/lte/limitsofgrowthteammember25nov03.shtml
November 25, 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy
To: Editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Inside Information on The Report To The Club of Rome 1972

I'll keep this short:

Around 1970-1971, a group of top scientists were commissioned to do a report on the world environment. The team concluded that in approximately 100 years, the earth would have serious ecological breakdowns that would endanger all species on earth, including our own. In 1972, the book Limits To Growth was published. This book was supposedly the report the team gave to the Club of Rome.

My brother in law, was a student member of the team. He joined the team as an intern (He was a doctoral student at Sonoma State College at the time).

In a nutshell, the team feared that mass hysteria and mass violence would occur in the world if the public fully understood that we were on the brink of a world-wide ecological collapse. They felt that large changes were necessary (very similar to the NWO outline) in our society to ensure our survival.

These conclusions were pragmatic, they were not inspired by hate. The team also hoped for positive changed that would help our society. I wish more sites that discuss the NWO philosophy would discuss the legitimate environmental concerns that these scientists had. Accurate information about the genesis of the NWO philosophy will help the public make responsible changes.

The future does not need to be ruled by sociopaths and tyrants.

Nancy

----- Original Message -----
From: Editor
To: Nancy
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Inside Information on The Report To The Club of Rome 1972

Hi Nancy,

Thanks for taking the time to send this note.

Is Anthony still alive and what does he feel about the impact of the orignal report today and the direction taken by the Club of Rome? You said he was a student member of the team. How many people were involved; students and professionals?

Do you believe in the conclusions reached by that report ?

Here are some items I would consider when judging the merits of such a report:

1. "Top scientists" does not equate to 'wise human beings' making sound judgements that serve in the best interest of humanity.

2. "Mass hysteria" seems to be the leading excuse by elitists to keep important information in their hands (and control) while denying their obligation to inform the general electorate (in the case of politicians and military) and the corpus of humanity (for scientists) on issues that have profound implication to the human species; but is it truly legitimate? The fact is, that large populations of people have NEVER reacted with mass hysteria to alarming information, despite efforts by the Illuminati to precipitate such hysteria as was the case with the 1937 Orson Welles' "War of the World" radio broadcast or the 1993 riots in Los Angeles. They were orchestrated test tuns to see how many people would react with panic and guess what? It didn't work. The horrors of the Nazi concentrations camps, the Sept 11 attacks in NY, etc, etc. Think for a minute: What historical event or information revelation has EVER resulted in "mass hysteria" by human popluations? It's a smoke screen. It doesn't happen.

3. The ASSUMPTIONS and PROJECTIONS of this team were BIASED toward a humanistic, mechanical view of world, not allowing for the self regulation (self limiting) of Nature-based creatures existing in a LIVING , Nature-based environment. These guys PRESUMED that the Nature itself was some sort of uncontolled process that needed THEIR wisdom and FORESIGHT to prevent self destruction. Talk about arrogance! Assumptions and projections are a very dangerous game to play even by the 'best' of 'scientists'. Projections have a way of not working out as projected by the "experts'. I could easily think of a couple of thousand examples of that in the 20th century alone.

4. I never said that the JASON Committee etc, were inspired by hate, but their conclusions were greviously flawed and the "remedy" for fixing their erroneous conclusions- worldwide GENOCIDE- somehow doesn't exactly convey a message of love in my book.

5. You said that they were concerned about "our" survival in your note. I'm sure they were thinking about THEIR (the elitist, the Illuminated crowd), survival and expansion, not "ours".

6. The Illuminati (the elitists) have done much more to DESTROY any possibility of employing wise and sound policy for ecological problems as demonstrated most clearly by the Bush clan at Rio and Kyoto, than those wasteful human populations acting in ignorance.

Yes, ecological concerns do need to be addressed, but by people of humanity and compassion, not the Nazi hordes presently in charge of the show.

Killing off 4 billion people to "save" humanity is not a "pragmatic" option.

Regards, Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy
To: editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Inside Information on The Report To The Club of Rome 1972

Ken, thanks for your response.

My brother in law is alive and well. Though he lives in Marin County (I also live in Marin County), I haven't spoken to him in years. I doubt he would publicly acknowledge that any type of conspiracy exists.

1) I agree, "top scientists" are not necessarily " wise human beings". I believe most of the scientists were from MIT. The book lists many of their names. Though you and I may not believe they were wise, there may be influential people who believe they were wise.

2) You bring up an excellent point about "mass hysteria", however, I believe that the team believed that at some point there would be mass hysteria and mass violence (looting, hoarding, murders, etc) that would result when people fully comprehended their situation and were faced with food shortages. Given that fear, they still published their book which details the breakdown of our ecological systems. (The team also had hopes that positive changes would occur in time).

3) I don't agree with your statement in #3. If you read the book, you will see that they perceive that humans are damaging the environment at an accelerating rate. Different types of damage is occurring world wide. There isn't an assumption that nature is an uncontrolled process.

Also, I believe they omitted the following sentiments from the book: Laws, local and national customs as well as religion influence the behavior that ultimately causes the environmental destruction. They hoped education would motivate voluntary change. They feared education and warnings would not bring about the change needed to avoid a disaster.

4) I agree, you never said the Jason Committee conclusions were inspired by hate. I think it is important to incorporate scientific findings and projections into discussions about the New World Order. Formal warnings by scientists have been given to many world leaders. Many of the predictions have come true. It is reasonable to assume that there are SOME people in power who take the warnings seriously and plan to be among those who survive. Reasonable people will turn into viscous animals if they are faced with death. They will also make choices that appear to be outrageous.

5) In response to #5, yes, their interpretation of "our" survival was probably themselves, their kids and their buddies.

6) Bush may go down in history as one of the greatest environmentalists who ever lived. His administration has managed to destroy one of the healthiest economies on the planet which has contributed to a world wide recession. To save the environment, industrialized society MUST BE SHUT DOWN. The economy is starting to recover. If I am correct, there will be more terrorism this next year which will plunge us back into a recession. I also believe that some of the domestic terrorism will be done by U.S. citizens. (If investment money is taken away from companies and people are too broke to buy products, the industries will shut down. The pollution will end). Ideally a fraction of the industry will remain which will ensure that the technology survives and evolves.

Lastly, I agree. Let's not allow the Nazi hordes to run the show. Newspapers have been suspiciously quiet about the environment during the last 20 years. If environmental concerns have spawned a hidden agenda by those in power, let's talk about it on the Internet.

I look forward to future discussions,

Nancy

----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy
To: editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: The Report To The Club of Rome 1972

Hi Ken,

Here is a link to the report I have been discussing.

http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf

If the link doesn't work you can find it again by going to the Club of Rome site. Then go to archives. It is the first report.

Skip generated the computer models. I got the book a few months back which helped to refresh my memory. The opinions expressed by Skip in my living room after they finished the report echoed the team's viewpoint. Those opinions were not in the book. Skip was in his early 20's at the time and involved in civil rights activities. We were a very liberal family back then. My mother was a photojournalist who despised Nixon. We had friends who marched in anti-war demonstrations, etc, etc. I think it is fair to say Skip formed some elitist opinions from the experience but he was certainly not an elitist before the project. He was seriously depressed for many months after he returned from Europe.

Regards,

Nancy

Related:

The Club of Rome, Chicken Hawks, and Geroge Soros (Sep. 14, 2004)