Ok folks, I finally had to dig into this….

Have you heard that President Trump is working to actively establish “Region 1” for the “Club of Rome” and seeking to be appointed King of Region 1 for the rest of his life?

Yes, that’s essentially the claim circulating on social media.

At first I tried to ignore it, but instead of going away it’s only growing stronger.

As President Trump ratchets up talk to take over Greenland and turn Canada into the 51st state, so too are people shouting that this was all predicted (or rather planned out) by the Club of Rome decades ago.

NEW: Danish officials are "utterly freaked out" & in "crisis mode" after Trump told them he intends to acquire Greenland during a 45-min call.

Trump was firm in his pursuit to acquire Greenland during a call with Denmark's prime minister, according to the Financial Times.

Five… pic.twitter.com/W8PNy34i5Y

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 24, 2025

But…is that true?  Or is it just another “Internet Conspiracy” from the tin-foil hat people?

I had to investigate.

You know I love a good conspiracy theory around here.  In fact, most of what we cover starts off as “conspiracy theory” and over time ends up being “conspiracy fact”.  In other words, we end up being right over time on so many things.

But this is one I honestly hadn’t ever looked into too much.

Is the Club of Rome real?

Did they really draw up a map dividing the Earth into 10 Regions back in 1974?

Well….yes and yes.

Here’s an early drawing of what that map looked like:

Later stylized like this in color:

Here is Benny:

The Club of Rome designated it as Zone 1. pic.twitter.com/W7VeAyL0PD

— illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) January 8, 2025

And yes, the USA + Canada + Greenland makes up “Region 1”.

That all appears to be factual and historically true.

The question that remains is whether this is just a grand “thought experiment” or something more devious hidden in plain sight.

Douglas C. Youvan produced an excellent paper on the topic which you can view here.  This is a portion of his report:

The 10 Kingdoms: A Geopolitical Framework or an Emergent Phenomenon?

Abstract

In 1974, the Club of Rome, an influential global think tank, proposed a provocative geopolitical framework dividing the world into ten regional blocs, now widely referred to as the “10 Kingdoms.” Born from concerns over overpopulation, environmental degradation, and economic instability, this proposal sought to address humanity’s growing crises through regional cooperation and sustainable governance.

However, the 10 Kingdoms map has since transcended its original intent, becoming a focal point for pragmatic analysis, conspiratorial fears, and prophetic interpretations. While some view it as a rational strategy for managing global complexity, others interpret it as a blueprint for authoritarian control or even a fulfillment of biblical prophecy as described in Revelation 17:12–14.

At the intersection of systems theory, geopolitics, theology, and emergent phenomena, this paper seeks to unravel whether the 10 Kingdoms map represents a deliberate plan, an unintended consequence, or an emergent global pattern. By examining historical context, belief systems, and modern technologies, we aim to illuminate the intricate forces shaping global governance today.

Keywords:

Club of Rome, 10 Kingdoms map, global governance, emergent phenomena, Revelation 17:12-14, systems theory, regional blocs, conspiracy theories, prophetic interpretations, geopolitical patterns, unintended consequences, artificial intelligence, sustainability, centralized power, global cooperation, historical analysis, belief systems, interdisciplinary research.

49 pages.

---

I. Introduction

In 1974, the Club of Rome, an influential think tank composed of scientists, economists, and global leaders, proposed a controversial geopolitical framework that divided the world into ten regional blocs, often referred to as the “10 Kingdoms.” This division was presented as part of a broader effort to address mounting global challenges such as overpopulation, resource depletion, economic instability, and environmental degradation.

Rooted in the insights of their earlier publication, Limits to Growth (1972), the map sought to create a model for sustainable governance by encouraging regional cooperation and coordination on critical transnational issues.

However, the 10 Kingdoms map has since transcended its original intent and become a symbol with vastly divergent interpretations.

• On one side, it is viewed as a pragmatic proposal for efficient global resource management and geopolitical stability in an increasingly interconnected world.

• On the other side, it has become enshrined in the narratives of conspiracy theorists and prophetic interpreters, who see it as a blueprint for a looming “New World Order”—a centralized authoritarian global government foretold in apocalyptic biblical prophecies, particularly in Revelation 17:12–14.

This duality—a well-meaning attempt at structured cooperation versus an ominous harbinger of totalitarian control—reflects the broader tension in humanity’s relationship with power, governance, and authority.

What one group sees as necessary structure, another sees as an existential threat.
What one group considers rational planning, another perceives as prophetic inevitability.

Yet, perhaps the most overlooked explanation lies in the nature of emergent phenomena—a concept drawn from systems theory and complexity science.

• Emergent phenomena describe outcomes that arise from the interplay of countless individual actions, intentions, and feedback loops, rather than from any single guiding hand or master plan.

• In such systems, the collective behavior cannot be fully reduced to—or predicted by—the actions of individual actors.

• The world, shaped by economic pressures, technological advances, cultural movements, and political decisions, often evolves in ways that no one fully intended or foresaw.

This paper seeks to explore this murky intersection between intentional design, unintended consequences, and emergent dynamics.

• Was the 10 Kingdoms map a deliberate step toward centralized governance?

• Was it an ambitious yet naive proposal doomed to unintended consequences?

• Or does it represent an emergent global pattern shaped by countless actors operating independently?

By examining the historical context of the Club of Rome, the narratives surrounding the 10 Kingdoms map, and the principles of emergent phenomena, this paper aims to untangle the complex web of factors that continue to make this map a point of fascination, suspicion, and debate nearly fifty years after its creation.

In doing so, it also seeks to address a broader and more pressing question:

Are global power structures ultimately the product of intentional human design, the unintended consequences of our collective actions, or something far stranger—an emergent pattern beyond the comprehension of any single individual or organization?

---

II. Historical Context: The Club of Rome and the 10 Kingdoms Map

The Club of Rome, established in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish scientist Alexander King,emerged as one of the most influential think tanks of the 20th century.

• Comprising a diverse group of intellectuals, policymakers, scientists, and economists,

• The organization aimed to address complex global problems that transcended national boundaries—including environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and unchecked population growth.

At the heart of the Club’s mission was the belief that humanity was rapidly approaching a series of critical thresholds, or “limits,” beyond which irreversible damage to the planet and human civilization would occur.

This conviction led to the publication of their groundbreaking report, Limits to Growth (1972), a study commissioned to model and predict the long-term consequences of global population growth, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion.

The report utilized systems dynamics modeling to forecast a future where unchecked growth would lead to catastrophic societal and ecological collapse unless significant changes were made to humanity’s trajectory.

The Vision Behind the 10 Kingdoms Map

In 1974, building upon the insights from Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome proposed dividing the world into 10 interconnected geopolitical and economic regions, often referred to as the “10 Kingdoms.”

This proposal was not intended to create an authoritarian global government but rather to establish a cooperative framework for sustainable development and resource management across regions with shared challenges and opportunities.

The 10 regions were envisioned as self-sufficient entities, each responsible for:

• Managing resources, economic policies, and environmental strategies

• Cooperating within a broader global network

The rationale was rooted in the belief that nations, acting independently and often in competition, could not effectively address planetary-scale issues such as:

• Climate change

• Resource scarcity

• Economic inequality

Key Motivations Behind the Proposal

1. Environmental Sustainability: Preventing catastrophic ecological collapse by ensuring responsible resource management across regions.

2. Economic Stability: Creating interdependent economic zones to mitigate financial crises and promote balanced growth.

3. Geopolitical Cooperation: Reducing international conflicts through regional integration and shared responsibilities.

4. Global Governance Without Centralization: Balancing regional autonomy with overarching cooperative structures.

The 10 Kingdoms map was, in essence, a thought experiment and a policy suggestion rather than a binding plan.Yet, the boldness of the proposal—combined with its stark visualization of a world divided into ten distinct blocs—captured public imagination and triggered intense debate.

Some are extremely critical and say “Trump is in on it”:

The Club of Rome and Committee of 300 aka NWO came out with this map in the 70’s. It has Canada and Greenland as part of the US in region 1. They plan on splitting the world up into 10 areas ruled by 10 Kings. This is also what the bible says. Trump is working for them. pic.twitter.com/NcGHQt41ob

— Sealed In Christ (@SealedInChrist1) March 24, 2025

I’m not going to go that far yet.  But I am watching this closely.

This is not something I can just dismiss outright as fake.

These globalist organizations like the Club of Rome and World Economic Forum have never been “the good guys” as far as I can tell, and I’m not getting good vibes about this one either.

Grok had more details, trying to promote a more optimistic viewpoint that perhaps President Trump sees this not as fulfilling some 50 year old plan from the Club of Rome but rather just seeing it like a real estate mogul — and that’s a fair point:

The Club of Rome is a nonprofit organization founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish scientist Alexander King. It brings together scientists, economists, business leaders, and former politicians to discuss global challenges like resource depletion, environmental degradation, and population growth. The group gained prominence with its 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, which used computer modeling to warn of potential societal collapse if growth trends continued unchecked. The Club describes itself as a think tank focused on promoting sustainable solutions and long-term thinking, with a current emphasis on areas like climate change and economic reform.

The idea of a conspiracy involving the Club of Rome and a plan to divide the world into 10 nations stems from a 1973 report titled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System, authored by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel. This report, part of the Club’s “Strategy for Survival” project, proposed organizing the world into 10 interdependent regions to better manage global resources and crises. The regions were not about erasing national sovereignty but creating a cooperative framework.

owever, some interpret this as a blueprint for a New World Order—a centralized global government—claiming it aligns with a hidden agenda to abolish nations and impose control.

This interpretation often ties into biblical prophecy, particularly from the Book of Revelation (17:12-14), which mentions “ten kings” who briefly rule with a “beast” before their downfall. Conspiracy theorists suggest the Club of Rome’s 10-region model is a step toward this scenario, orchestrated by global elites. Critics of this view argue there’s no evidence the Club has the power or intent to enforce such a structure—it’s a discussion group, not a governing body—and the report was a theoretical exercise, not a policy mandate.

Now, how does this connect to Donald Trump, Canada, and Greenland? In recent years, especially around his 2024 campaign and post-election rhetoric in early 2025, Trump has mused about annexing Canada as a “51st state” and acquiring Greenland from Denmark, citing national security and economic benefits. For example, he’s suggested Canada’s trade deficits and reliance on U.S. defense make it a candidate for merger, while Greenland’s strategic location and resources (like rare earth minerals) justify U.S. ownership. These comments, often framed as offhand or bombastic, have fueled speculation among some observers.

On platforms like X, users have linked Trump’s statements to the Club of Rome’s 10-region idea, noting that its proposed North American region (Region 1) includes the U.S., Canada, and Greenland. Some claim Trump is knowingly or unknowingly advancing this decades-old plan, acting as a puppet for globalist elites despite his “America First” stance. They point to his tariff threats against Canada and Denmark as coercive steps toward consolidation. Others see irony, arguing that Trump, who criticized globalism in a 2019 U.N. speech, might be enacting a hyper-globalist vision under a nationalist guise.

Skeptics dismiss this connection as tenuous. Trump’s remarks align more with his real estate mogul mindset—viewing geopolitics as a series of deals—than with any obscure 1970s think tank proposal. There’s no direct evidence he’s aware of or following the Club of Rome’s model. His focus seems driven by immediate U.S. interests, like countering China’s influence near Greenland or renegotiating trade with Canada, rather than a grand conspiracy. The Club itself has no record of involvement with Trump or his policies, and its current work centers on climate advocacy, not geopolitical restructuring.

In short, the Club of Rome’s 10-nation concept is a theoretical idea that’s been exaggerated into a conspiracy narrative. Ties to Trump’s Canada and Greenland comments are speculative, rooted in pattern-seeking rather than concrete links. It’s a fascinating overlap for some, but it hinges more on interpretation than fact.

My final take?

I don’t like this, I don’t really like it at all.

But….President Trump has more than earned my trust with all he’s done.  So I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

I’ve still got President Trump’s back 100%, but I am watching this with increased skepticism.

What do you think?