---

A 1973 Thames Television UK documentary on the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth explained that only through complete control of societies can catastrophe be avoided and that a coming revolution should be planned.

However, the models used to make those predictions were deeply flawed and based on pre-conceived outcomes rather than any solid data.

Below is a short extract from the Thames Television documentary highlighting comments by Club of Rome co-founder Alexander King, co-author of The Limits to Growth Dennis Meadows, the Godfather of climate change Maurice Strong and founder of management cybernetics Anthony Stafford Beer.

The narrator summed up The Limits to Growth: “It concludes that economic growth generates a crisis.  The road to riches is a road to disaster. They found that if you control everything, including industrial production, no crisis emerged.  But this assumes we will stop getting richer.”

Dennis Meadows said: “I think it’s important for you to realise that you only really have the right to have two children, to expect that you’re going to have to make short-term sacrifices.”

Alexander King said: “It’s important that everyone should have a concept of the world as a whole and should avoid as far as possible bringing up their children in any sense of local patriotism, nationalism, and parochialism.”

You can watch the full documentary on Internet Archive in two parts HERE or in full HERE.

Alexander King was the President of the Club of Rome (1984–1990) and Dennis Meadows is an honorary member.  See a list of past and present Club of Rome members HERE.  According to former intelligence officer Dr. John Coleman, the Club of Rome is a servant body of the Committee of 300. 

The Committee of 300, also known as The Olympians, goes back to the German politician Walter Rathenau (1870-1922), the Weimar Republic’s Foreign Minister in the early 1920s. He purportedly said: “There is a Committee of 300 men whose identity is known only to each other who rule the world”. In a 1909 article, “Geschäftlicher Nachwuchs”, in the Viennese Neue Freie Presse he wrote, “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”

In his 1991 book ‘The Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Committee of 300’, Dr. Coleman describes King as “a favourite with the Committee of 300.”  King and Strong are both named on Dr. Coleman’s list of past and present members of the Committee of 300 (see pg. 231 of The Conspirators’ Hierarchy).

Regarding the report The Limits to Growth authored by Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows for the Club of Rome, Dr. Coleman wrote: “What was their report all about? It did not differ fundamentally from what Malthus and Von Hayek preached, namely the old question of not enough natural resources to go around. The Forrester-Meadows Report was a complete fraud. What it did not say was that man’s proven inventive genius would in all likelihood work its way around ‘shortages’.”

From Malthus to The Limits of Growth

According to historian F. William Engdahl, David Rockefeller founded the think tank The Club of Rome, along with two self-professed Malthusians – Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King – in 1968.

The Limits to Growth – a deeply flawed report commissioned by the neo-Malthusian Club of Rome – was published on 2 March 1972. It’s claimed to be the first to model our planet’s interconnected systems and concluded that if growth trends in population, industrialisation, resource use and pollution continued unchanged, we would reach and then “overshoot” the carrying capacity of the Earth at some point in the next one hundred years.

Read more:

• Germany’s Net Zero Carbon Disaster and The Great Reset Criminal Conspiracy, The Exposé, 27 September 2022
• The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset, F. William Engdahl, 22 October 2022

The Limits to Growth wasn’t the first publication based on a model connecting population and resources. It may have been the first computer model and the first to fuse global temperature with variables like population growth, resource loss, and the under-defined category of “pollution” – but it was not the first model connecting resources to population growth to then be used to justify the culling of the unfit and overpopulated useless eaters. 

Today world organisations such as the United Nations Population Fund acknowledge that the debate over how many people the Earth can support effectively started with Thomas Malthus (1766-1834).

Malthus was a professor at the British East India Company (“BEIC”) training college and is best known for his pessimistic but highly influential views on population growth. Malthus’s position at the college gave his theories considerable influence over Britain’s administration of India through most of the 19th century. The most significant result of this influence was the official response to India’s periodic famines: the famines were regarded as necessary to keep the “excess” population in check.

Incidentally, Dr. Coleman noted in his 2008 book ‘The Club of Rome’ that the BEIC is today known as the Committee of 300.

In An Essay on the Principle of Population, first published in 1798, Malthus made the famous prediction that population would outrun the food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person. He even went so far as to specifically predict that this must occur by the middle of the 19th century, a prediction which failed for several reasons, including his use of static analysis, taking recent trends and projecting them indefinitely into the future, which often fails for complex systems.  Despite the flaws in his model, Malthus wrote:

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

An Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus, 1798, pg. 44

Read more: Thomas Malthus, CS McGill

As BEIC’s star economist, Malthus promoted the mathematical thesis that population levels will always tend towards geometric growth, while agricultural resources will tend to arithmetic growth resulting in relatively forecastable “crisis points”.  Malthus and his disciples, known as “Malthusians”, believed that social engineers representing the British Empire must use these “crisis points” to scientifically manage the “human herd”. 

According to Malthus, only natural causes (e.g., accidents and old age), misery (war, pestilence, and above all famine), moral restraint and vice (which for Malthus included infanticide, murder, contraception and homosexuality) could check excessive population growth.

Malthus’ theories of population were repackaged as the system of eugenics advocated by Sir Francis Galton (cousin to Charles Darwin), Sir Julian Huxley (president of the British Eugenics Society) et al.

Malthus’s theory served as the basis of Darwin’s interpretation of natural selection. This, in turn, served as the basis of Galton’s theory of eugenics and Herbert Spencer’s theory of social Darwinism (ultimately a more ‘hands off’ approach to weeding out the unfit in a race for diminishing returns).

Read more: The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits, Unlimited Hangout, 28 June 2022

Malthus gave no proof of his assertion that population increased exactly in geometric progression and food production increased exactly in arithmetic progression (a straight line). It has been rightly pointed out that population and food supply do not change in accordance with these mathematical series. And Malthus denies, for example, creative reason; human ingenuity does not follow a straight line.  Malthus, in later editions of his book, did not insist on these mathematical terms and only held that there was an inherent tendency in population to outrun the means of subsistence. 

Despite this admission, his modern followers, such as the Club of Rome, have revived and popularised his theory by simply taking his formula and adding more variables.  Regardless of how many variables neo-Malthusians add to their predictive models to make them appear scientific, data sets can be easily cherry-picked, skewed and reframed according to the desired outcome of the computer programmers.

Have things changed in the last 50 years?

Bear all of the above in mind while watching the video below published by The Club of Rome in which Meadows and others reflect on 50 years since the report’s publication.  We have embedded the video to begin with Meadows’ 10-minute presentation.

Meadows appeared to be admitting his 1972 study was deeply flawed while at the same time holding firmly onto his beliefs that he was right.  Yes, he comes across as confused.  Meadows said the scenarios in The Limits to Growth are not predictions and admits his model is not precise but rather a “useful perspective.” He then said:

“It’s important to note that Limits to Growth looked at growth, it didn’t look at decline. So, if our study had any relevance at all that relevance lies in the past. That’s why I welcome the new Club of Rome study … The future [is] going to need to consider an entirely different set of options, resources, constraints and goals.”

“We need to shift our perspective from slowing down to getting back down … it’s going to require … institutions, goals, social norms very different than the ones we have today.”

The reality, Meadows admits, is decline. But, he says, “we need to shift” from “slowing down to getting back down” – which indicates there is a growth problem. There seems to be an obvious conflict in his statements. Is that borne out of trying to fit the real world into an ideology, perhaps?  If so, this is the sort of unscientific mindset that leads to data sets in models being cherry-picked, skewed and reframed according to a desired outcome.

[A note from Rhoda: I watched about 20 mins of the video below. I tried to watch more but, seriously, the little I did manage to endure did my head in.  These people are not of sound mind.  It’s not advisable to spend too much time watching or listening to people like this, it’ll make you go doo-lally.  As for me, I’m now going to have to find a sane person to talk to so I can counteract the weird, creepy, insane c**p I’ve just seen. On a positive note: if people such as those in the video below is what we’re up against … we’ve got this.]

What outcome could the modellers be looking for from their forecasts?

While we don’t know the inner workings of their minds, there seems to be a recurring theme throughout the history of these doomsday models which link population size to available resources.  The recurring theme is misanthropy, eugenics and depopulation.  To add to the examples already mentioned above, below are a few more.

As noted by F. William Engdahl, in 1974, two years after publishing its “limits” report, the Club of Rome boldly declared: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Then: “The world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as overpopulation, food shortages, non-renewable resource depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance.”

In 1991, in a follow-up book to The Limits to Growth, King admitted their use of resources to create a false narrative and reiterated the Club of Rome’s misanthropic sentiments:

The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man

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. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. 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.

The First Global Revolution, Alexander King, 1991, pg. 115

In 2017, Meadows, one of The Limits to Growth’s authors, advocated for the genocide of 86% of the world’s population by a global dictatorship:

“We could [ ] have eight or nine billion, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living …  But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.  I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”

Featured image: Dennis Meadows presenting The Limits to Growth c.1972.  Source: Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development? Smithsonian, 15 March 2012