By Patrick Wood

The late Peter G. Peterson was an investment banker and early member of the Trilateral Commission. His organization, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, defines globalization like this:

Globalization is the word used to describe the growing interdependence of the world’s economies, cultures, and populations, brought about by cross-border trade in goods and services, technology, and flows of investment, people, and information.

When the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, it was the first to popularize the concept of “interdependence” even though the nation-states of the world had little interest at the time.

Based on its concept of interdependence, the Commission further claimed that it intended to create a New International Economic Order (NIEO). With no point of reference at the time, it was difficult to understand what their NIEO would look like, except that it would turn the entire world into a common melting pot of economic activity and degrade or eliminate the concept of the nation-state in the process.

In May 1974, just a few months after the Trilateral Commission was founded, the United Nations passed Resolution 3201, Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. This was not particularly surprising in that The Rockefeller family had strong and enduring ties to the United Nations, even donating the land upon which its current headquarters is built.

In sum, from 1974 onward, the race to global transformation was underway with the Trilateral Commission providing the policies and the United Nations providing the execution of those policies.

Fast forward to December 2018. The UN passed another Resolution, Globalization and Interdependence with a subtitle, Towards a New International Economic Order. It first recalled the 1974 Resolution and then three paragraphs later stated,

Reaffirming its resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015, entitled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, in which it adopted a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centered set of universal and transformative Sustainable Development Goals and targets, its commitment to working tirelessly for the full implementation of the Agenda by 2030,

Thus, the UN itself directly tied the New International Economic Order to Sustainable Development and its 2030 Agenda.

Understanding the backstory is critical to understanding more current events that we will soon discuss.

Between 1983-1987, the UN had convened the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), commonly called the Brundtland Commission because its chairperson was Gro Harlem Brundtland. The Commission concluded with the publishing of the seminal book, Our Common Future, which meticulously detailed the principles of Sustainable Development. When the UN met in Rio De Janeiro in 1992 to adopt Agenda 21 (the agenda for the 21st century), it was based almost exclusively on Brundtland’s Our Common Future.

Brundtland herself wrote the Chairman’s Foreword and stated,

“A global agenda for change” – this was what the World Commission on Environment and Development was asked to formulate. It was an urgent call by the General Assembly of the United Nations:

  • to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond;
  • to recommend ways concern for the environment may be translated into greater co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of economical and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supportive objectives that take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment, and development;
  • to consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more effectively with environment concerns; and to help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and the appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment, a long term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational goals for the world community.

So what, you ask? Well, Gro Harem Brundtland was a principal member of the Trilateral Commission. Her background as Minister of the Environment and then Prime Minister of Norway made her the perfect vehicle to introduce the Commission’s radical new economic system to the world, through the auspices of the United Nations.

In other words, the Trilateral vision of Sustainable Development is the same as its original New International Economic Order. It is a resource-based economic system designed to sequester resources of the world while controlling all production and consumption through the control of energy.

Thus, it should be no surprise that the former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, stated in 2015 the UN’s intent to destroy capitalism and free enterprise,

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

Sustainable Development Contagion

The United Nations saturated its entire organization with the doctrine of Sustainable Development: Every agency, every level and every one of its 40,000 or so employees. In turn, their mandate was to saturate every nation and population group on earth.

In addition to direct influence, the UN enlisted and chartered a legion of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), The Nature Conservancy, Religions for Peace, Save the Children International, World Energy Council, Earth Day Network, Ocean Conservancy, Population Media Center, ad infinitum. As of 2020, there are no less than 40,000 such NGOs affiliated with the UN, and they literally cover the entire planet. Thanks to the enlistment of major global media outlets, articles on some aspect of Sustainable Development appear on a daily basis.

In the United States, Sustainable Development was brought to the national political stage with the introduction of the Green New Deal (GND) in 2019 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). While climate change would seem to be the incidental driver of GND, it should be noted that the UN’s own report, Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012 makes it clear,

“Climate change has become the de facto proxy for implementation of the sustainable development agenda.”

Many Americans laughed at GND and the politicians behind it. However, in just one year since its introduction, it has been endorsed or at least tolerated on both sides of the political isle. Several large urban centers have already implemented their own versions of GND, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, New York and Chicago.

Going The Last Mile

In global supply chain vernacular, “the last mile” represents movements of goods from a transportation hub to the final delivery destination, often a house, apartment or business. The last mile is often the most difficult to achieve because it is different in every case.

It is one thing for the United Nations to deliver Sustainable Development to countries, regions and states, but yet another to infuse it into neighborhoods and even local residences.

The UN NGO Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) is a good example of how this is accomplished. According to its own website,

ICLEI makes sustainability an integral part of urban development and creates systemic change in urban areas through practical, integrated solutions. We help cities, towns and regions anticipate and respond to complex challenges, from rapid urbanization and climate change to ecosystem degradation and inequity.

The local and regional governments in our network confront these challenges by incorporating sustainability into day-to-day operations and policy. We invest in the capacity and knowledge needed to design solutions and make decisions informed by data, scientific evidence and local realities and pressures. Our five pathways towards low emission, nature-based, equitable, resilient and circular development are designed to create systemic change.

We work in cities, towns and regions of all sizes, with varying capacities and challenges. Many have set and reached ambitious targets and are at the forefront of sustainability, pioneering new solutions and challenging the status quo. Others are taking early steps towards transformation, strengthening their systems and capacities to achieve sustainability goals. (emphasis added)

ICLEI had “consulting” contracts with over 600 cities, towns and counties throughout America at one point, until savvy citizens caught on to their schemes and drove them out of many places. ICLEI was never invited to infiltrate America. It just showed up. When challenged, ICLEI would rush to point out that everything they do is voluntary on the part of their clients. Nevertheless, they were an important part of the UN’s so-called deep transformation.

Another example of local infusion is demonstrated by a personal experience that this writer had in northern Idaho several years ago. County officials were approached by an out-of-state consultancy pushing a document called a “25-year general plan” for sustainable development. They wanted the county to pay a large sum of money for help in localizing the plan, considering the local environment, building codes, infrastructure, resources, etc. The sales pitch revolved around the certain threat of being sued by any number of environmental groups if they didn’t get it right in the first place. County officials succumbed but it was little more than extortion in the end. Now this county is saturated in Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, International Building Codes, Sustainable zoning codes, etc., and its citizens are still wondering what happened.

Opportunity Zones

Another method of going the last mile with Sustainable Development is seen in a new investment vehicle called Opportunity Zones (OZs). This scheme was hatched in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, under Section 13823, which states,

This section authorizes the designation of opportunity zones in low-income communities and provides various tax incentives for investments in the zones. Taxpayers may temporarily defer the recognition of capital gains that are invested in opportunity zones. Investments in opportunity zones or opportunity funds that are held for at least five years are eligible for capital gains tax reductions or exemptions, depending on how long the investment is held.

There are almost 9,000 such OZs designated throughout America and outside money is pouring in. This is no small thing, either. According to Smart Growth America, currently designated OZs represent 10 percent of America’s landmass, containing 30 million people. It adds,

The newly created Opportunity Zones program will likely go down as the largest and most significant federal community development initiative in U.S. history, with trillions of dollars in new private investment about to start flowing into pre-designated low-income communities around the count.

Upon further investigation, this writer discovered that the lobbyist group behind OZs represented several uber-rich billionaires in the high-tech world. They were looking for a way to divest themselves of very low-cost assets without having to pay capital gains taxes, and yet expand and diversify their foothold in the spread of Sustainable Development throughout America.

In practice, almost all of the funds thus far invested in OZs have found their way into Sustainable projects involving Smart City technology. Unfortunately, the underserved areas are not sophisticated enough to figure out what is happening when their neighborhoods are suddenly ungulfed by the “deep transformation” process as described above.

The Great Panic of 2020

What should have been a legitimate health emergency quickly turned into what this writer is calling the “Great Panic of 2020”. It has achieved virtually all the goals of Sustainable Development in one fell swoop: driving cash out of circulation, shutting down the global economy, forcing citizens into Sustainable behavior, etc. This is beyond anything that climate change hysteria could ever have accomplished.

How could this happen?

Again, a little research uncovered the original link of the panic: Imperial College in London. Imperial is deeply rooted in Sustainable Development education and policies, and has long been part of that university group that spews out radical studies on the deleterious effects global warming. Invariably, faulty computer models have been used to create pre-determined outcomes.

It was the same Imperial College, using the same faulty computer models but focused on COVID-19, that made the first predictions of 500,000 dying in England and 1.2 million in America. Their predictions have been greatly reduced just one month later, but the damage had already been done. At the same time, it also spewed out the policy remedies of social distancing, closure of schools and universities, suspending economic activities, etc.

The policy wonks who churned out this panic-intended narrative are not even medically trained scientists at all. Rather, they are epidemiologists. In other words, they are mathematicians and statisticians. Worse, they are wholly committed to the implementation of Sustainable Development.

To reiterate, the Great Panic of 2020 has picked up where global warming hysteria failed, and has driven sustainable thinking and practices directly into virtually every household in the world.


The implementation of Sustainable Development down to the local level is reminiscent of Star Trek episodes that involved the “Borg”, a race of beings merged with technology to achieve hive-minded hybrids whose singular mission was: “We will assimilate”. Such is the march of the UN’s economic model of Sustainable Development.

It is being taken from global to national to local by the same kind of hive-minded people who desire to transform the world into an alternative reality that only they can see. Utopia-on-a-stick. The rest of us are considered crazy for not seeing how great a Sustainable world will be.

On the other hand, perhaps it is they who are blind as bats to the grand plan of the Trilateral Commission’s New International Economic Order. There is no substitute for understanding history and remembering who your enemies really are.

Related Reading:

Technocracy News and Trends

Solari Report Resources:

1st Quarter 2020 Wrap Up: The Real Deal on Going Local – The Final Mile with Patrick M. Wood

Opportunity Zones: Prototyping Community Technocracy with Patrick Wood

Technocracy with Patrick M. Wood

Best Books for 2020