TEK-NAH-KRAH-SEA: The hvrd R0vd 2 Wurld 0rder

“We are building the global society without a global 
leader. Global order is no longer something that can 
be dictated or controlled from the top down. 
Globalization itself is the order.” - Dr. Parag Khanna 


DEDICATION 


This book is dedicated to the fleeting memories of Unalienable Rights, 
Freedom, Liberty and the Constitution of the United States. May they yet 
inspire future generations. 


PREFACE 


I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public 
servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this 
way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become 
the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and 
they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, 
and they will apply the remedy. - Daniel Webster, 1837 


if n the last two years, great emphasis has been placed on “Make 
America Great Again”. Few have considered what made America 
great in the first place. Any American who has travelled overseas can 
immediately appreciate the benefits of living in America: freedom to travel, 
higher income, consumer goods for every lifestyle, learning opportunities, 
opportunities to compete, etc. But are these really what makes America 
great in the first place? 


Alas, no! 


The foundation stones of American greatness are found in the Declaration 
of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration stated, 


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of 
Happiness. 


The authors understood that these rights were not conferred by men, but 
rather by their Creator. Thus, when man attempts to take away these rights, 
they are not only misplaced in the order of things, but they are also setting 
themselves against God Himself. 


The resulting form of government is called a Constitutional Republic, as 
opposed to a Democracy or any other form of government. The checks and 
balances between the three main bodies of the Republic, Executive, Judicial 
and Congress, are meant to prevent runaway power of any one group. 


The Constitution protects our rights to own property and to use it for our 
own enjoyment and economic purposes. Other countries that do not support 
the right to own property have always been given to mediocrity, corruption 
and poverty. 


In the last 50 years, enemies of the Constitutional Republic and the 
Constitution itself have arisen to destroy both. They are haters of freedom 
and liberty and haters of all those who would esteem them. They are 
simultaneously haters of an anchored morality as found in the Ten 


Commandments, the Bible and philosophy in general. 


Nevertheless, America is the last bastion of Freedom and Liberty in the 
world, and this is not lost on those who want to conquer the earth for their 
own pleasure and purposes. In short, America stands in their way, and they 
hate us for it. Like a spoiled and unreasoning todler, they want their way and 
they want it now! 


Many Americans are starting to wake up to these attacks but are still in a 
fog as to how it could have happened in the first place. More are searching 
for what they can do to overcome these would-be usurpers. Others are 
discouraged and ready to give up entirely. 


This book seeks to address all of these issues. I have tried my best to take 
complex issues and make them easy to understand and in a compact form. 
There is a risk that I have said too little on certain topics and perhaps too 
much on others, but I expect it will balance out to give you a good 
understanding of the state of the world in a relatively short period of time. 
My overriding desire is that you will be better equipped to find lasting and 
effective solutions. 


Patrick M. Wood Author 


TECHNOCRATS: A POSTMODERN PEAN 


Technocrats, the story goes, 

Will solve the horrid mess- 

Where ethics fail, the gadgets work 
And will bring about success. 

Just plug it in and hit the key 

And let the old brain rest; 

Just what we should or should not do 
Technology can answer best. 

But gadgets they may be the cause 
Of the Angst the people feel, 

For science is cold and does not care, 
About the commonweal. 

Old Kant still whispers his moral laws 


But few still hear his voice; 


All’s relative and there is no truth, 
Just leave it to personal choice. 
Computers buzz and wheels go ‘round 
And Bentham and Mill are dead; 

The person’s free to do his thing 
Morality has all gone to bed. 

All is freedom and self-esteem, 
Leaving conscience as the guide, 

The world is fun and is a game 

With technocracy by my side. 

Iam the Postmodern Man, 

And man means woman, too; 

What is the purpose of our lives? 
There’s not the slightest clue. 

We do our race through cyberspace 
And compose the digital thunder; 
Just how technology does for the soul 
Causes me to wonder. 


- John Calhoun Merrill (1924-2012) 


FOREWORD 


T he saying that people can’t see the forest for the trees is more 
accurate today than ever before. They are more puzzled, bemused, 
frustrated, angry, and even lost because a small group of people convinced 
society that only they knew what to do. The individual feels he has lost 
control. Many books try to explain how to handle the situation, but they 
usually only work for a few people, specialized groups, or specific 
circumstances. This book, explains in a clear, simple, factually supported, 
but interesting and exciting way, how this developed. More important, it 
goes back to a pre-specialist world when there were general rules and a few 
exceptions. Now, everything is an exception and confusion reigns. 
Fortunately, this book explains everything, so it applies to everyone. 


I told an American audience that Osama bin Laden said that the west had 


lost its moral direction. They were then shocked when I said that he is 
absolutely correct. I put the comment in perspective by saying that I don’t 
want his morality either. People struggle with the challenges of today’s 
increasingly confusing and complex world. They understand what the 
English poet William Wordsworth meant in his poem, 


The world is too much with us; late and soon, 
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers; 
Little we see in Nature that is ours; 

We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! 
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon; 

The winds that will be howling at all hours, 
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers, 
For this, for everything, we are out of tune; 

It moves us not. - Great God! I’d rather be 

A pagan suckled in a creed outworn; 

So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, 

Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn; 
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea; 

Or hear old Triton blow his wreathéd horn. 


Wordsworth identified our challenge and the challenges of our world. He 
was born in 1770 at a time when the world was beginning to witness a major 
transformation. Science and technology offered relief away from the blood, 
sweat, and tears of living. However, while it offered great benefits, there 
was a hidden danger because it put power in the hands of very few people. I 
remember learning about studies in the 1960s almost inconceivable today, 
that located small isolated Pacific islands with no technology and introduced 
a metal axe. It transformed everything in ways they did not anticipate. It is a 
micro-example of what occurred in the world since the advent of science 
and technology. The group with the axe controlled everything. 


Wordsworth died in 1850 just 9 years before Darwin published his 
seminal work Origin of Species. His work was profoundly different than any 
science before him. In fact, the word “scientist” doesn’t appear until the late 
19th century. Darwin was a naturalist, and that point is critical to the central 
theme of this book. Before Darwin, science evolved in what those 
technocrats with specific natural abilities arrogantly identify as its pure 
form. Copernicus said the Earth orbits the Sun, but proof did not appear for 


275 years. Research shows at least 25% of Americans believe the pre- 
Copernican view. The point is it didn’t matter to most people. Newton 
explained gravity and planetary motion, but it was of no consequence to 
most. However, everything changes when Darwin’s theory challenges 
everybody. To put it provocatively, he said you and your grandmother are 
apes and no better than them. 


Science chose Darwin and his theory to defeat religion. Before him, 
universities had two major faculties, the Natural Sciences and the 
Humanities. By effectively eliminating God as the explanation for humans 
being so different from all the other animals, they left a void, which was 
then filled by the now largest faculty on all campuses, the Social Sciences. 
That term is central to the theme of this book because it implies you can 
quantify humans and human behavior and therefore manipulate it. 


Wordsworth didn’t offer a solution other than to suggest we go back to a 
primitive, animistic state we already moved beyond. “I’d rather be a pagan 
suckled in a creed outworn.” His problem is that before you find solutions, 
you must first recognize, identify, and understand the problem. 


Patrick Wood does precisely that in this book. It identifies the birth, 
evolution, and intrusive nature of the exploitation of science and technology 
by a group, accurately and adequately identified as technocrats. It provides a 
perspective on what appear to be disparate, disconnected, events. It cuts 
through the forest planted by a small group and used to control individuals 
and collections of individuals. It allows you to step back and take the 
urgency out of life. It allows you to counter what H.L. Mencken described: 


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, 
and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an 
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. 


Dr. Timothy Ball 
Copyright © 2018 by Patrick M. Wood 
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof 
may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever 
without the express written permission of the publisher 
except for the use of brief quotations in a book review. 
Printed in the United States of America 
First Printing, 2018 
ISBN 978-0-9863739-8-5 
Coherent Publishing, LLC 


P.O. Box 52247 
Mesa, Arizona 85208 
www. Technocracy.news 
Cover image: © Can Stock Photo Inc. / csp10857422 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Dedication tii 
Table of Contents v 
Technocrats: A Postmodern Pean vii 
Acknowledgements ix 
Foreword xi 
Preface xv 
Introduction 1 
Chapter 17 
The Basics of Technocracy 
Chapter 2 17 
Technocracy Is Sustainable Development 
Chapter 3 27 
The UN’s Planetary Troika 
Chapter 4 41 
The Rise of the Global City 
Chapter 5 57 
The Smart City Steamroller 
Chapter 6 71 
Building Networks of Cities 
Chapter 7 85 
Globalist Tools of Devolution 
Chapter 8 101 
Fintech: Crypto, Cashless and Green 
Chapter 9 119 


Living in a Fishbowl 
Chapter 10 135 
Worshipping the Creation 
Chapter 11 149 


Resistance Is Never Futile 


Chapter 12 159 


Conclusion 


Appendix I 173 
HABITAT II - NEW URBAN AGENDA 


Appendix IT 183 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 


Index 205 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


There is nothing easy about writing a book, especially when it comes to 
editing and proofing. Things like punctuation and misspelling are relatively 
easy to catch, but testing concepts, wordings and contexts is much more 
difficult. A lot of work went into getting it just right. There were three 
people in particular who sifted every word, sentence and paragraph to make 
numerous corrections and clarifications: My eagle-eyed wife, Charmagne, 
friend Gail Hardaway who is a retired English proffessor and friend 
Charlene Ives who is an avid reader with a penchant for detail. Special 
thanks also to readers of Technocracy.News who have been my eyes and 
ears all over the world by forwarding articles, books, videos and other tips to 
me. 


INTRODUCTION 


It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” but an end- 
run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will 
accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. - 

Richard Gardner ? 


Few people would confess that the modern world makes any sense. 
National governments are dysfunctional. Economic activity defies 
traditional analysis. Debt levels are simply inconceivable. There is no 
diplomacy or civility left anywhere in the world. Violence and barbarity are 
not just limited to Islamic terrorists, but now include radicals, malcontents 
and snapped individuals from all walks of life. 


The Trilateral Commission was co-founded by David Rockefeller and 
Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973 with the stated purpose of creating a New 
International Economic Order (NIEO). Subsequently, elite members from 
North America, Europe and Japan gave birth to modern globalization and 
have literally transformed the entire global economic structure. 


To readers of this book, the societal outcomes above will soon be seen as 
the natural outcomes and consequences of the Trilateral Commission 
imposing Technocracy on the world through its NIEO. This author was an 
eye-witness in those early days, with able scholarship from the late 
Professor Antony C. Sutton, and together we had many direct interactions 
and debates with Commission members. 


In 1974, original Trilateral Commission member and academic Richard 
Gardner wrote a seminal paper that was published in Foreign Affairs, the 
official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Obsessed with the 
Trilateral goal of creating a “New International Economic Order”, Gardner 
titled his article, The Hard Road To World Order2 


Gardner had the French Revolution on his mind, as he bracketed his 
thoughts with quotes from Charles Dickens’ famous literary classic, A Tale 
of Two Cities: 


It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of 
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was 
the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season 
of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we 
had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going 
direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way. 


Nothing about the French Revolution was uplifting or inspiring. In fact, it 


was one of the bloodiest and most irrational assaults on humankind in 
history. The wanton killing, executions, chaos and societal darkness 
persisted from 1789 to 1799 and ultimately led to the tyrannical dictatorship 
of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Indeed, Napoleon changed the world 
forever, presaging the rise of global socialism, communism and revolution. 


Gardner’s oft-repeated statement that followed gives us an insight into his 
radical idea to turn the world upside-down: 


In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the 
bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 
“booming, buzzing confusion,” but an end-run around national 
sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more 
than the old-fashioned frontal assault. # 


We should not miss the point that the French Revolution followed the 
same pattern, that is, from the ‘bottom up”. Although Gardner was not 
recommending bloodshed, as was the case in France, he did foresee the 
existing world order succumbing to a process figuratively similar to the 
barbaric Chinese practice of “death by a thousand cuts”. 


Since 1974, the systematic dismantling of national, state and personal 
sovereignty, the reformation of global trade and the ad hominem attacks on 
those critical of their “plan” have all served to create the “booming, buzzing 
confusion” that we experience today. 


In this, Gardner was right: It is going to be a very hard road. 


In the conclusion to Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global 
Transformation, | wrote, 


If today’s technocrats are meticulously working toward a scientific 
dictatorship and applying a specific strategy to get there, wouldn’t you 
think that they have a specific list of criteria that must be met before 
“game over” can be called? 


With the rapid advances in Smart City technology, mass surveillance, the 
Internet of Things, 5G rollouts and now massive censorship of all opposing 
positions, it seems that “game over” may have actually already been called; 
if not, it is certainly very close. 


China is now widely acknowledged (in academic circles, at least) as 
having transitioned to a full-blown Technocracy. It has the outward 
trappings of Communism left over from the last century, but it has now 
superseded Marxism and Communism, and has promoted it to other nations 
around the world. 


The China transformation was aptly predicted by Trilateral Commission 


co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages: 
America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. He maintained that Marxism, 
Communism and Socialism were merely the necessary stepping-stones to 
reach his “Technetronic Era” but were not themselves the intended 
endgame. I consider Brzezinski to be venerated on this point. 


A book was released by Dr. Parag Khanna in 2015 titled, Technocracy in 
America, issues a blunt call to implement a direct Technocracy in the U.S. 
He calls for the abolishment of the Senate, the replacement of the Executive 
office by a committee of co-Presidents and the surrender of the Constitution 
to the Supreme Court for modernization. 


Big Tech has since become the engine of mass censorship of non- 
complying thought, most of which is conservative. Twitter, YouTube, 
Google, Facebook and even Amazon have seemingly colluded to exclude 
“deniers” from their respective platforms. Credit card processors like Stripe, 
Mastercard and Paypal have joined them to summarily cut off funding from 
conservative websites and organizations. 


The new telecom standard, 5G, is stampeding into cities around the world 
with such blinding speed that there is hardly time to mount a protest. 
Leaders of the 5G revolution like AT&T and Verizon, have bluntly and 
openly stated that 5G is not about SmartPhones but rather about enabling the 
Internet of Things and all other Smart City technologies. 


Mass surveillance technology has exploded around the world with facial- 
recognition cameras, sensors, artificial intelligence and analytics. China 
expects to have 600 million facial recognition cameras installed by 2020. In 
Chinese cities that are already blanketed with these cameras, any person can 
be located and collared within minutes of putting out the command to do so. 


Public-Private Partnerships, a creation of the UN’s Sustainable 
Development policies, are blanketing the U.S. under the leadership of 
President Donald Trump. For every taxpayer dollar spent on public projects 
and especially on infrastructure, there will be up to $10 of corporate money 
spent. 


It should be clear that the march toward Technocracy is neither Democrat 
or Republican, liberal or conservative, Marxist or Capitalist. Since 1973, 
every Administration has promoted it and followers of every ideology have 
served as its “useful idiots.” 


Some of these things are certainly recognized more readily than others. 
The main thought is, the point of inflection to establish full-blown 
Technocracy is much closer today than ever before. This book will extend 
the work of Technocracy Rising to flesh out the demise of nationalism and 
the rise of global cities, the global supply chain and Scientific Dictatorship. 


Thus, without apology or hesitation, I dedicate this book in protest to 
Professor Richard Newton Gardner who was first to tell us about the “Hard 
Road” we have experienced since 1974. 


Booming, buzzing confusion, indeed. 


2 Foreign Affairs, Vol. 52, Number 3, 1974, pp 557-576. 
3 Foreign Affairs, Vol. 52, Number 3, 1974, pp 557-576. 


4 Ibid. 


1 Tue Basics oF TECHNOCRACY 


The scientists have the future in their bones. 
- C.P. Snow 


No, they don’t. 
- P.M. Wood 


B y 1932, America had fallen into deep economic depression. 
During the three years since the precipitous stock market crash of 
1929, ten thousand banks failed, the economy shrank by thirty-one percent, 
international trade fell by two-thirds and unemployment rose to almost 
twenty-four percent. 


It should not be surprising that many Americans believed that their 
national economic system was mortally wounded. Politicians and bankers 
were widely believed to be responsible: the politicians as corrupt and 
bumbling fools and the bankers as malevolent, vampire squids. 
Unfortunately, people also realized how helpless they were to change 
anything, and this drained whatever hope was left. 


At the same time, the media giant Randolph Hearst was trying to hang on 
to his flagship, Hearst Communications that owned no fewer than 30 major 
newspapers in the largest American cities and many national magazines. At 
its peak, Hearst Communications was the largest media company in the 
world. Nevertheless, Hearst was fighting for his very existence by 1932, 
trying every trick in a publisher’s playbook to hold on to readership and 
advertising revenue. 


By the early 1930s, Hearst had already developed a reputation for so- 
called yellow journalism, having "routinely invented sensational stories, 
faked interviews, run phony pictures and distorted real events."? With the 
whole world already largely detached from reality, most readers couldn’t 
recognize fake news or wouldn’t care if they did. That news might also be 
corrupted only fit in with the larger picture of political corruption, anger and 
despair. 


The stage is now set to introduce Nicholas Murray Butler, President of 
Columbia University in New York. Although both of them were national 
figures, there was no love lost between Hearst and Butler who had been 
attacked by Hearst as an “arch-propagandist for un-American principles”? 
Indeed, Butler was the paragon of progressivism in America while Hearst 


was just as passionately anti-Communist and anti-Fascist. 


Nevertheless, Hearst smelled a big story when Butler announced in early 


fall 1932 that Columbia University was backing a brand new economic 
system being designed by scientists and engineers that could replace 
Capitalism and Free Enterprise and quite literally rescue the whole world. 
Since politicians and economists had already failed, why not give the 
scientists and engineers a shot at it? Even more compelling was the name of 
this new economic system: Technocracy. 


Well, this was news and the Hearst syndicate wasted no time in jumping 
on it. Here was a unique story of something truly new that could restore 
hope to a hopelessly lost and dying economic system. And most 
importantly, delivering a hopeful message would certainly build readership 
and, in fact, it did! The presses ran hot all over America, cranking out story 
after story on the coming miracle age of the scientific society, if only the 
scientists and engineers could work out all the details. Many Americans 
swooned, cheered and then bought even more newspapers and magazines to 
stay up with the latest developments. 


While it was true that Hearst had lowered his principles to support 
anything coming out of Columbia University, his concerns might have been 
assuaged when he discovered that the Technocrats, those scientific and 
engineering saviors, were also pointedly anti-Communist. In fact, an implicit 
side-benefit of Technocracy would be to permanently erase Communism 
from America which undoubtedly helped Hearst’s decision to get behind it. 


Throughout the fall and winter of 1932, Hearst and Butler were 
seemingly on the same page. However, neither of them realized that they 
were being conned by the messianic leader of the Technocracy group, 
Howard Scott. Scott relished the attention he received at Columbia, and he 
loved to give interviews to any reporter who would listen, most of whom 
were employed by Hearst newspapers. The bubble suddenly popped when it 
was discovered that Scott did not have the engineering degree that he 
claimed to have; in other words, he had pointedly defrauded both Butler and 
Hearst and to say that they were both livid is an understatement. 


Damage control was immediate. Reputation-sensitive Butler, who had put 
Columbia up to be the laughing stock of global academia, summarily drop- 
kicked the entire Technocracy group off the Columbia campus. Hearst was 
no less dramatic, for the purveyor of fake news had been caught at his own 
game. The guillotine fell swiftly on every Hearst publication in America: 
Don’t ever mention the word ‘Technocracy” again or you will be fired. Not 
surprisingly, no more stories on Technocracy appeared in Hearst 
publications. 


This could have been the end of Technocracy, but it wasn’t. Howard 
Scott’s ego was bigger than rejections from Butler or Hearst. Even though 


he was dead broke by spring of 1933, he maintained a friendship with one of 
the earlier Technocracy crowd, M. King Hubbert. In fact, Hubbert was 
generous enough to take Scott in as a roommate where they continued to 
discuss ways to get Technocracy into the mainstream of American thought. 
Both were further encouraged by people around the country who had 
already attached themselves to the Technocracy dream. 


Finally, in early 1934, Scott and Hubbert filed articles of incorporation 
for Technocracy, Inc. in New York state and created a membership 
organization that would require annual dues to provide operating funds. 
From this time forward, Technocracy as an economic ideology was fleshed 
out by Technocracy, Inc., and mostly by M. King Hubbert. 


The Technocracy Study Course was published before the end of 1934 and 
immediately became the touchstone for everything that followed. This 291- 
page volume was the master architectural document that not only defined 
Technocracy but also presented details on how to implement it. It was 
grandiose in scope: 


Technocracy is dealing with social phenomena in the widest sense of 
the word; this includes not only actions of human beings, but also 
everything which directly or indirectly affects their actions. 
Consequently, the studies of Technocracy embrace practically the 
whole field of science and industry. Biology, climate, natural 


resources, and industrial equipment all enter into the social 


picture... 


Here we can make the first major observation about Technocracy; society 
and science are pictured as one, or at least intricately interwoven. This 
theme has been presented consistently and methodically at every 
Technocracy meeting throughout North America ever since. In 1938, their 
official magazine, The Technocrat, offered the same core belief with some 
additional clarification: 


Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific 
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute 


goods and services to the entire population... 4 


Not only did they invent the “science of social engineering”, but they 
intended to impose its methodology on the entire society. Furthermore, the 
object of the exercise was to produce goods and services to everyone. There 
is no doubt that Technocrats themselves openly declared that Technocracy 
was a replacement economic system for Capitalism, and the rest of the 
Technocracy Study Course explained how it must be implemented and then 
operated by Technocrats consisting of engineers, scientists and technicians. 


What commended these Technocrats to think that they were able to run 
society better than anyone else or, for that matter, that society would allow 
them to do so? Herein we find the second major observation, and it relates to 
Technocrats themselves: They are an egotistical bunch who have been 
infected by the ideological poison of Scientism. This is a fine point but one 
that needs to be understood because it is so very relevant to today’s world as 
well. Early-on in the Study Course, we see the following statement: 


Science is, in a dynamic sense, essentially a method of prediction. It 
has been defined as being the method of the determination of the most 
probable.” 


This is a false narrative, but here is where it first originated: The 
acknowledged philosophical father of both Technocracy and Scientism was 
Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), who wrote over one-hundred years 
earlier, 


A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because 
science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the 


scientists are superior to all other men.® 


“A method of prediction” and “science provides the means to predict” are 
fundamentally identical. They are broad sweeping statements that can only 
be understood through the eyes of Saint-Simon himself who went on to say 
that “scientists are superior to all other men.” Thus, this mental superiority 
complex is exactly where the real trouble with Technocracy began. 


First, Technocrats believed that every problem in society could be 
answered by science and only science. Second, they believed only they and 
they alone could devise those answers using the same Scientific Method 
used in the hard sciences. Third, they believed that they and they alone must 
be the ones who actually run society. When I say they “believed”, the proof 
of this lies in the fact that they consistently assumed the world would 
naturally bow to them and automatically turn everything over to them. Let 
me demonstrate. 


The geographic focus of early Technocracy was exclusively on what they 
called the North American Technate. Their official map included Greenland, 
all of Canada, Alaska, the continental United States, Mexico, Cuba, all of 
Central America and the few northernmost countries of South America. It 
was assumed that somehow this entire geographic region would adopt 
Technocracy as its economic system and allow the scientists and engineers 
to control the whole thing. What is totally missing from all of their 
literature, and I have searched thoroughly, is any explanation or rationale on 
how to convince these sovereign nations to roll over into Technocracy; it 
just never occurred to the Technocrats that anyone would resist them. In 


other words, if science is fact, and facts have the last word, then who would 
have anything else to say? 


This is the same siren call of Scientism that persists to this very day, and 
we see these same attitudes in all the modern aspects of Technocracy, such 
as Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda, Biodiversity, Global 
Warming, alternative energy, etc. In every case, the “science” is presented as 
“settled” with the implicit assumption that nobody has a reason to dispute 
either the science or the remedial actions that are specified to fix some 
perceived problem. 


To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a Technocrat scientist or 
engineer, everything looks like a problem begging for a scientific or 
engineering solution. 


It is important to make a distinction between real scientists and engineers 
versus their Technocrat counterparts. The latter have been infected with 
some degree of Scientism while the former have not. The world is full of 
legitimate scientists and engineers who just want to practice their craft and 
be otherwise left alone. They contribute greatly to the service of mankind. 
They have no desire to run the world or tell everyone else what they must or 
must not do. They are not into falsifying or misusing data to fit unprovable 
theories, and most of all, they are not interested in using their technologies 
to control people. To these, we salute! 


The Technocracy Architecture 


Technocracy is a resource-based economic system that uses energy as its 
accounting system. This is in contrast to our current economic system which 
is price-based (i.e., supply and demand) and uses money as its accounting 
system. 


In a resource-based economic system, all resource inputs required for 
human subsistence would be carefully measured and meted out in the most 
efficient manner in order to eliminate wastage. All consumption would be 
automatically limited by issuing to all citizen a quota of energy certificates. 
These certificates could be spent on goods and services priced according to 
the energy that it took to make them in the first place. This, they reasoned, 
would create a Utopia-like society where people would only work 20 hours 
per week and yet still have abundance of material goods available for 
consumption. 


Extensive details of the mechanics, details and rationale of Technocracy 
can be found in the Technocracy Study Course and in this author’s book, 
Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation+ In the 
interest of space, I will list a few of the more salient features in this section. 


The official requirements for Technocracy are seen on page 232 of the 
Study Course and were considered necessary for normal operation of the 
Technate: 


1. Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net 
conversion of energy. 


2. By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, 
make possible a balanced load. 


3. Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption. 


4. Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods 
and services, where produced and where used. 


5. Provide specific registration of the consumption of each 
individual, plus a record and description of the individual. 


6. Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his 
individual share of Continental physical wealth. 


7. Distribute goods and services to every member of the 
population. 


In items 1 and 2, you can see the focus on control over energy 
distribution and consumption. Items 3-5 cover the extensive collection of 
data that would be used to monitor and control the societal machinery. Item 
6 indicates that citizens could buy anything they wanted, limited only by the 
number of Energy Certificates that were issued at the beginning of the 
accounting period. Item 7 points out that every single member of society 
would be in the system, with no possibility of holdouts. 


Other key points to the original definition of Technocracy include, 


© Private property would be eradicated altogether. Everything would be 
owned in common by the Technate and controlled by them. 


e All price-based currencies would be abolished and replaced by a 
system of Energy Certificates. 


e Energy Certificates would be issued at the start of an accounting 
period, and expired at the end of it, preventing accumulation of savings 
for future needs. 


e All conceivable human needs (food, housing, transportation, medical, 
retirement, etc.) would be met by the Technate at their sole discretion. 


¢ Traditional systems of government would be abolished, including 
Congress and state governments. 


¢ A continental board of Technocrats would manage all economic and 
societal affairs according to Functional and Service Sequences, defined 
by and run by themselves. 


© Education would be transformed into human conditioning to prepare 
students for a lifetime of work chosen for them by the Technate. 


© Science and the Scientific Method would be the sole guide to decision- 
making throughout the Technate, based on collected data. 


Because private ownership of any resource was deemed wasteful and 
inefficient, Technocracy specified that all automobiles would be converted 
into public assets. Ride-sharing would become the new norm: 


This would be accomplished by instituting what would resemble a 
national ‘drive it yourself’ system. The Automotive Branch of 
Transportation would provide a network of garages at convenient 
places all over the country from which automobiles could be had at 
any hour of the night or day. No automobiles would be privately 
owned. When one wished to use an automobile he would merely call at 
the garage, present his driver's license, and a car of the type needed 
would be assigned to him. 'When he was through with the car he 
would return it either to the same garage, or to any other garage that 
happened to be convenient, and surrender his Energy Certificates in 
payment for the cost incurred while he was using it“ 


If you have any understanding of modern initiatives like Agenda 21, 
Sustainable Development, 2030 Agenda, Global Warming, etc., you should 
immediately see some striking parallels to historic Technocracy. Don’t be 
tempted to write it off as coincidental because it is not! 


In all of its original self-conceived glory, Technocracy is alive and well 
today. But don’t let anyone suggest to you that it is a modern idea cooked up 
by the United Nations, NGOs, economic planners or even the Trilateral 
Commission. It was not! 


One of the keenest insights into Technocracy was offered by Aldous 
Huxley in 1932, at the exact same time that Nicholas Murray Butler and 
Randolph Hearst were crowing about the economic miracle being conceived 
at Columbia University. Huxley didn’t have to look twice to see that the 
outcome of Technocracy would be Scientific Dictatorship. The title of his 
book? Brave New World! 


8 Martin Lee, and Martin Solomon, Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media, (L Trade 
Paper, 1991). 


9 Ben Proctor, William Randolph Hearst: The Later Years, 1911-1951, (Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 197. 
10 Scott and Hubbert, Technocracy Study Course, (Technocracy, Inc., 1934), p. ix. 
1 “What is Technocracy”, The Technocrat Magazine, 1930. 


12 Ibid. p. 12. 


13 Letters from an Inhabitant of Geneva to His Contemporaries, (1803). The Political Thought of Saint-Simon 
(Oxford University Press, 1976). 


14 Wood, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, (Coherent Publishing, 2015), 
15 Ibid., p. 232-233. 


16 Ibid., p. 253-254. 


2 TECHNOCRACY IS SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT 


America has more than enough democracy. What it needs is more 
technocracy - a lot more. - Parag Khanna 


o establish relevance for the reader, it is necessary to 

demonstrate that Sustainable Development is Technocracy, and vice 

versa. Even though this will make some parts of this book redundant, it is 
better to cut to the chase and lay out the case in plain and clear terms. 


Since Chapter 1 has already provided some background for 
understanding Technocracy, a brief explanation on the essence of 
Sustainable Development will help to clarify my assertion. 


The term was first coined in 1980 by the United Nations’ International 
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in a 
document called World Conservation Strategy- Its meaning was simply 
conservation that balanced nature with economic development. The opening 
sentence of the text states, 


The aim of the World Conservation Strategy is to help advance the 
achievement of sustainable development through the conservation of 


living resources. © 


It is important to note that the term is in lowercase, indicating that it was 
not yet considered a proper noun. In every instance in this document it 
referred to economic development which they claimed was on a collision 
course with depleted resources unless conservation measures were put in 
place to balance the two. This was clearly seen in a statement like, 


For if the object of development is to provide for social and economic 
welfare, the object of conservation is to ensure Earth's capacity to 
sustain development and to support all life. ¥ 


Three years later in 1983, the United Nations convened the World 
Commission On Environment and Development (WCED) and appointed 
Gro Harlem Brundtland as the chairperson. Brundtland was formerly Prime 
Minister of Norway but had a strong background in environmental issues. 
She was also a member of the Trilateral Commission, which, as you will 
remember, was exclusively dedicated to creating a New International 
Economic Order. As the Brundtland Commission was terminated in 1987, it 
celebrated the publication of its outcome book, Our Common Future, which 
in 1992 became the cornerstone document in the creation of Agenda 21 


policies at the first Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. The Rio event was 
officially called the United Nations Conference On Environment and 
Development (UNCED). 


The very succinct definition of Sustainable Development found in Our 
Common Future has been endlessly quoted in UN, NGO, academic and 
governmental literature throughout the world ever since its publication in 
1987: 


Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the 
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet 
their own needs. 


While this may sound noble, the details are problematic, as seen in 
statements like this: 


In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which 
the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the 
orientation of technological development, and institutional change are 
all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet 


human needs and asprations.¥ 


First, the “process of change” is all-encompassing, focusing on resources, 
investments, technology and governments. When viewed through the eyes 
of Trilateral Commission policies, which Brundtland clearly represented, 
one sees a plan to completely recast global economic development. 


Second, “resources” are the key concern. Of course, resources are a 
necessary ingredient to the production of all goods and services. The 
problem is that those resources tied up in personal property or in poverty- 
stricken nations are not available to the elite global corporations. Thus, 
sustainable development promoted a process to free up resources for global 
development. This would increase the size of the economic pie as well as 
their share of it. 


Third, “investments” must be redirected in order to take control of 
resources and future development. However, who controls these investments 
in the first place? The problem here is that the consumer-based economy 
was continually bumping up against growth limitations and could not satisfy 
the global oligarchy’s desire to expand further. Public treasuries and pension 
funds represented by cities and governments, continually replenished by the 
taxation of citizens, represented a bottomless pit of investment funds. This 
naturally gave rise to the concept of Public-Private Partnerships (P3) where 
corporations and governments partner on grandiose projects to supposedly 
stimulate economic development. P3 has taken hold in every nation on earth 
and has effectively overcome the problem of springing funds from 


government lockup into the hands of corporate developers. 


Fourth, the plan saw the need to reorient technology development toward 
this economic development concept. Previously, most spending on 
technology was focused on legitimate human needs. Today, most spending 
on technology is focused on sustainable development and related areas such 
as global warming, geoengineering, connectivity, etc. 


Last, Sustainable Development calls for changes in the institutions that 
govern society. The problem is that existing government structures were 
resistant to the exploitation proposed by sustainable development. In 
America, this gave rise to the Clinton and Gore initiative called the National 
Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR). NPR was created by 
President Clinton’s Executive Order 12862 on March 3, 1993, just one year 
after Agenda 21 was created by the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Other 
similar initiatives around the world have radically changed how 
governments view sustainable development. This also created the right 
environment for P3s to flourish. 


In short, sustainable development promised the Utopia of eliminating 
poverty, providing jobs and education for all, and protecting the 
environment all at the same time. Indeed, these were the sales hooks used to 
secure buy-in to Sustainable Development in the first place. 


Was Sustainable Development disingenuous or was it for real? 


Pratap Chatterjee and Matthias Finger, authors of The Earth Brokers in 
1994, were direct participants in the UN meetings leading up to the Earth 
Summit held in Rio in 1992. They were environmentalists of the original 
order that preceded globalization, and they were deeply disappointed in the 
entire process and outcome. They concluded that “as a result of the whole 
UNCED” process, the planet was going to be worse off, not better.” In 
further opposition, they wrote, 


We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial 
development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its 
inhabitants. We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get 
richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is 


destroyed in the process. 


Such early warnings from prominent UN insiders were either 
marginalized or totally ignored. There is no doubt that certain elements of 
the environment were under stress in 1992, but it was caused by the very 
globalization policies created by the Trilateral Commission and its members 
in the first place. However, Free Trade and industrial development were 
never put on the table as culprits. Instead, people were blamed for 


environmental destruction. Those countries with high levels of poverty were 
held up as the principal culprits. 


To solve these problems, a member of the Trilateral Commission, Gro 
Harlem Brundtland, proposed a solution that required even more 
development. Increased efficiency, more technological solutions and 
centralized control over resources would somehow make it everything 
better. Of course, this was nonsense. You don’t tell a drug addict that his 
remedy to kick the habit is to get a purer form of heroin. 


Toward the end of the Earth Summit, youth representatives were allowed 
to give their impressions of the process and proceedings, and they selected a 
young lady from Kenya, Wagaki Mwangi, who worked for the International 
Youth Environment and Development Network in Nairobi. Her short, 
pointed and shocking statement left many attendees in dead silence: 


The Summit has attempted to involve otherwise powerless people of 
society in the process. But by observing the process we now know how 
undemocratic and untransparent the UN system is. Those of us who 
have watched the process have said that UNCED has failed. As youth 
we beg to differ. Multinational corporations, the United States, Japan, 
the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund have got away with 
what they always wanted, carving out a better and more comfortable 
future for themselves... UNCED has ensured increased domination by 
those who already have power. Worse still it has robbed the poor of 
the little power they had. It has made them victims of a market 
economy that has thus far threatened our planet. Amidst elaborate 
cocktails, travailing and partying, few negotiators realized how 
critical their decisions are to our generation. By failing to address 
such fundamental issues as militarism, regulation of transnational 
corporations, democratisation of the international aid agencies and 
inequitable terms of trade, my generation has been damned.#2 


While this may seem to be a harsh assessment to some readers, I am only 
setting up to ask this question: Jf Sustainable Development is not really 
about saving the planet, then what is it? 


In short, it is Technocracy merely warmed over from the 1930s. Perhaps 
it could be called neo-Technocracy, but we will stick with Technocracy. 
First, here are some differences between Technocracy in 1934 and 
Sustainable Development in 1992 and onward. 


Technocracy vs. Sustainable Development 


Financial backing: The original Technocracy movement that started at 
Columbia University was disgraced in 1932 and had absolutely no 


institutional support thereafter. Operating funds were raised with 
membership dues. When David Rockefeller entered the scene in 1973 with 
the formation of the Trilateral Commission, Technocracy found its day in 
the sun, after which untold amounts of money poured in. 


Representation: Politicians, bankers and corporatists were not allowed 
into early Technocracy; Technocrats believed Technocracy would ascend on 
its own, without any outside help when Capitalism was completely dead. 
The Rockefeller group understood that Technocracy could not ever take 
hold until these groups were actually driving it through the transitionary 
period. However, note that as Technocracy proceeds to gain traction today, 
these same groups are increasingly appearing to be the so-called ‘useful 
idiots’ of Technocracy, played like violins as they promote the very system 
that will bury them in the end. 


Scope of operations: As already noted, early Technocracy was focused 
on the North American continent plus part of South America. Today, 
Sustainable Development envelops the entire planet. This is intuitive 
considering that the Trilateral Commission intended to build a “New 
International Economic Order.” 


The positive identifiers between Technocracy and Sustainable 
Development are many and varied. Here are a few that stand out clearly. 


Energy Currency: Both systems are obsessed with control over energy 
production and consumption. Early Technocracy wanted to replace money 
with Energy Certificates which it viewed as the only logical accounting 
system for a resource-based economy. Sustainable Development is obsessed 
with Carbon Credits (derived from energy), Cap and Trade programs and the 
uniform transfer of energy to all parts of the planet. In 2012, the 
International Social Transformation Conference met in Split, Croatia, and 
was attended by prominent economists from around the world. The theme of 
the conference was Energy Currency and the subtitle was “Energy as the 
Fundamental Measure of Price, Cost and Value.”4 Presenter topics 
unquestionably tied Energy Currency to Sustainable Development: “4 Better 
Kind of Backing: Helping Sustainable Currencies to Scale’, “Sustainable 
Money for a_ Sustainable Economy” and “Money, Energy and 
Sustainability”. 


Control over energy: The first two requirements of Technocracy 
concermed the control of energy. The second requirement stated, “By means 
of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a 
balanced load.” This is identical to Sustainable Development’s goal of 
renewable energy and the global smart grid; everything must be finitely 
controlled down to the last milliwatt. 


Data-Driven: Early Technocracy proposed to collect all economic and 
personal data on all processes and people in society. The fifth requirement 
of the Study Course stated, “Provide specific registration of the consumption 
of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” 
Modern Sustainable Development shares the exact same obsession, where 
all decisions will be “data-driven” according to the scientific method. Data 
is viewed as causative, as one industry website states: “Big data is what will 
drive smart cities. It will be the force that ensures they become a reality.”~ 
Every agency of the United Nations is served by the UN Statistical Division 
(UNSD) that provides technical help to all other agencies, as well as 
mountains of data collected by itself. 


Resource-based: Early Technocracy states, “There must likewise be 
continuous analysis of data and resources pertaining to the Continent as a 
whole, both for the purposes of coordinating current and of determining 
long-time policies as regards probable growth curves in conjunction with 
resource limitation and the like.” The Technocracy, Inc. logo was the 
Chinese Monad, or Yin Yang symbol that depicted “balance” between 
production and consumption. Sustainable Development is obsessed with and 
depends on control over resources, conservation, and preservation. One 
definition states that it is “the organizing principle for meeting human 
development goals while at the same time sustaining the ability of natural 
systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which 
the economy and society depends.”=2 


Management: Early Technocracy would be managed exclusively by 
engineers, scientists and technicians. Original Technocrats proclaimed that 
“it will be the function of its engineers and technologists to put into 
operation a permanent productive and distributive system which will harness 
the energy-resources of the country for the mutual benefit of the entire 
population.” Recently, a scholar and advocate of both Sustainable 
Development and Technocracy stated, “With a science PhD and a no- 
nonsense attitude, Germany’s Angela Merkel is Europe’s parliamentary 
technocrat par excellence.” He further stated, “Technocrats can make big, 
unpopular and painful decisions that are also urgent, necessary and even 
essential for national wellbeing [sic].”22 What is a Technocrat? According to 
Webster, it is “a technical expert, especially on exercising managerial 
authority”, and it notes that the first use of the word was in 1932! This 
attitude of elevating scientists, engineers and technicians is widespread 
throughout the United Nations and the Sustainable Development 
communities. 


A final thought involves Ms. Christiana Figueres, who at the time was 
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on 


Climate Change (UNFCC). On February 3, 2015, Figueres addressed a press 
conference in Brussels, Belgium. Remembering that Climate Change is at 
the heart of Sustainable Development, Figures’ statement was shocking, yet 
perfectly clear: 


This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, 
which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, 
for the first time in human history. 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 model that has 
been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. 
That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single 
conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the 
number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the 
depth of the transformation.* 


Two things can be certain about this. First, Capitalism and Free 
Enterprise are on the chopping block, and second, Sustainable Development 
is the chosen replacement. Figueres herself testifies that when this happens, 
it will be the first occurrence of such a change in the history of the world. 


After an exhaustive historical inquiry, I can confidently state that the only 
specifically-designed replacement economic model created in the history of 
the world was: Technocracy! 


Thus, it is clear that Sustainable Development is Technocracy and vice 
versa. 


Making this connection now will help the reader to understand the 
balance of this book in its proper context. The Sustainable Development 
movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and 
purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once 
its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense. 


15 World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, World 
Conservation Strategy. URL: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/WCS-004.pdf, (1980). 


16 Ibid., p. iv. 

17 Ibid., Foreword 

18 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, (Oxford, 1987) p. 43 
19 Ibid., p. 46. 


20 UNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UNCED was the organizer and host 
of the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992. 


21 Chatterjee & Finger, The Earth Brokers, (Routledge, 1994), p. 2. 


22 Ibid., p. 3. 


23 Ibid., p. 167. (Note: The full text is reprinted in Third World Resurgence, 1992, No. 24/25, p. 27.) 
24 See website, www.teslaconference.com. 

25 Op. Cit., p. 232. 

26 Op. Cit., p. 232. 

27 Making smart cities a reality: How to handle big data, ITProPortal.com website. 

28See the www.unstats.un.org web site 

29 Op. Cit., p. 227. 

30 See Wikipedia, “Sustainable Development”. 

31 “A Statement by Technocracy”, p. |. 

32 Parag Khanna, Technocracy in America: The Rise of the Info State, (Createspace, 2017), p. 89. 
33 Ibid., p. 106. 


34 Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally, United Nations Regional Information 
Centre For Western Europe, Press release, February 3, 2015. 


3 THe UN’s PLANETARY TROIKA 


The implementation of the New Urban Agenda contributes to the 
implementation and localization of the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development in an integrated manner, and to the 
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and targets. - 
UN 


U nderstanding that Sustainable Development is not about the 
environment but rather about economic development puts the 
entire United Nations’ agenda in a different light. Whatever genuine 
sentiment that might have existed about stewardship of the planet forty years 
ago, it was mercilessly hijacked by the same people who were the root of the 
problem in the first place. In fact, they had no regard for nature or people. 
As discussed in the previous chapter, this hijacking was accomplished by a 
very narrow and focused group of internationalists as represented by 
members of the Trilateral Commission. The United Nations became, in 
effect, a proxy for this group and the universal driving force to implement its 
policies. 


As noted by Chatterjee and Finger in 1994, the Earth Summit that 
produced Agenda 21 was about “more growth, more trade, more aid, more 
science, more technology and more management.” They finally concluded, 


UNCED has shown us the global horizon, but by analyzing the 
UNCED process we now know that the word ‘global’ is a mirage. It 
turns out to be the illusion created by the traditional agents and major 
stakeholders in order to maintain their privileges and to avoid 
questioning the fact that their traditional problem-solving mechanisms 
are basically bankrupt. 


This observation is just as valid today as it was then. However, Agenda 
21 was just the kickstart to what has become a global tsunami of 
transformational change designed to replace Capitalism and Free Enterprise 
with Technocracy.= It has exercised a relentless strategy using all the 
resources available to the UN. It is this latest iteration of this strategy that 
will be addressed in this chapter. 


If Agenda 21 is viewed as a linear attack on humankind, then the major 
UN events of the last two years can be seen as a full-spectrum battle plan 
with three-dimensional characteristics. These events, which will now be 
discussed in detail, include, 


1. UN Sustainable Development Summit held in New York on 


September 25-27, 2015 that produced the 2030 Agenda For Sustainable 
Development. 


2. UN Climate Change Conference held in Paris on November 30 
through December 12, 2015, that produced the Paris Agreement On 
Climate Change. 


3. Habitat II held in Quito, Ecuador on October 17-20, 2016 that 
produced the New Urban Agenda. 


As you consider these three major UN events as a whole, you will note 
that a) the 2030 Agenda sets the overall goals and framework of Sustainable 
Development, b) the Paris Agreement provides the rationale for achieving 
the goals and c) the New Urban Agenda provides the action plan and 
specifics to implement it in every community on earth. 


The 2030 Agenda 


Gro Harlem Brundtland, original editor/author of Our Com-mon 
Future that gave rise to Agenda 21 in 1992, attended the UN Sustainable 
Development Summit in New York City. Brundtland’s official title was 
“Special Envoy on Climate Change”, indicating that she had a close working 
relationship with the head of Climate Change at the UN, Christiana 
Figueres. As the Summit ended on Sunday, September 27, 2015, Brundtland 
headed to Ohio State University to deliver a speech at Mershon Auditorium 
on the next day. The drumbeat was the same as she stated, 


Finally, after nearly 30 years, countries all over the world have been 
able to overcome often very deep differences of opinion and priorities, 
and define common sustainable development goals, that apply to all 
countries, not just to the developing world... Indeed great strides have 
been fought, since the launch of the Millennium Development Goals in 
2000. We have dramatically reduced the amount of people living in 
extreme poverty, more people have access to safe drinking water, 
fewer children are dying in infancy, and fewer mothers (are dying) 
when giving birth. 


But then she noted that “unprecedented levels of prosperity” had not been 
enough to narrow the gap between rich and poor, which was still 
“widening.” Of course, it was still Climate Change that threatened the most 
vulnerable ecosystems and populations. What was the answer? More 
Development! 


In fact, Brundtland’s rosy economic picture was at odds with data 
published by the World Bank itself which is one of the most important 
drivers of globalization. From 1990 through 2015, the World Bank reports 
that the number of people living with under $10 per day had increased by 25 


percent. Those living with under $5 per day had increased by 10 percent to 
include two-thirds of the earth’s population. 


The 2030 Agenda document that was produced at this Summit heralded 
17 new and more comprehensive Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 
These replaced the so-called Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that 
were created in 2000 and which were intended to expire in 2015. However, 
all UN literature was careful to state that the SDGs acknowledged and built 
upon both Agenda 21 and the MDGs. In other words, the SDGs represented 
a maturing and a natural expansion of the original Sustainable Development 
vision. 

In light of Brundtland’s vain attempt to outrun the real facts on global 
poverty, it is ironic that the very first SDG is a pledge to “End poverty in all 
its forms everywhere.” One wonders what they will say in another 20 years 
when the poverty gap widens even more? Here are the 17 MDGs as drafted 
by the UN: 


1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere 


2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and 
promote sustainable agriculture 


3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 


4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote 
lifelong learning opportunities for all 


5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 


6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and 
sanitation for all 


7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern 
energy for all 


8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, 
full and productive employment and decent work for all 


9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable 
industrialization and foster innovation 


10. Reduce inequality within and among countries 


11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and 
sustainable 


12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 


14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine 
resources for sustainable development 


15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial 


ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and 
halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 


16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable 
development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, 
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels 


17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the 
Global Partnership for Sustainable Development 


The first seven SDGs are purely Utopian speculations, designed to soften 
the psyche before pouring on the strong medicine. Only a fictional Utopia 
could end poverty and hunger, ensure health, water, provide lifelong 
education and full employment, etc. The word “development” finally 
appears in the eighth SDG, and the heart of the matter finally appears in 
SDG #12: “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.” How 
will this be accomplished? 


The Preamble of the 2030 Agenda pledges that the UN is “determined to 
protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable 
consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources’. 
Thus, the initial cost of Utopia is nothing less than turning over control of all 
natural resources to the UN. This thought is repeated in paragraph 33 of the 
Introduction, 


We recognise that social and economic development depends on the 
sustainable management of our planet’s natural resources. We are 
therefore determined to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, 
freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and 
to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife.~ 


Careful consideration of oceans, seas, freshwater, forests, mountains and 
drylands reveals that this represents 100 percent of the surface of earth. 
Subparagraph 12.2 of SDG 12 repeats the thought yet again, “By 2030, 
achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” 


Someone is bound to rebut the thought that the UN will manage all global 
resources. Such a person is missing the strategy. Let’s say you own property 
in a city or county that has adopted the UN’s programs of Agenda 21, Smart 
Growth, Green Economy, etc., You will soon find yourself ensnared in a 
web of green regulations demanding that you manage your property 
according to their rules and guidelines. If you refuse, you will be fined, 
taxed, denied other rights and generally oppressed until you knuckle under 
and obey! While your name may be on the property title, your rights have 
been stripped and you have been forced to bow to UN-prescribed 
management practices. The point is, ownership and control of property are 
separate items. 


International trade is also referenced as “an engine for inclusive 
economic growth and poverty reduction, and contributes to the promotion of 
Sustainable Development.” Nations are encouraged to beat a path to the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) and to practice trade liberalization, or the 
removal or loosening of restrictions. 


Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, science is put at center stage in 
Paragraph 70, and offered as the viable mechanism to achieve Sustainable 
Development. Since traditional solutions to overcome poverty, hunger, 
sickness, etc., have failed in the past, technology is viewed as the only 
possible savior. This smacks of Technocracy. More text is dedicated to this 
topic than any other portion of the 2030 Agenda document. The UN 
Interagency Task Team on Science, Technology and Innovation will work 
with 10 representatives from the civil society, private sector, and the 
scientific community to enable the SDGs world-wide. This massive 
endeavor will accumulate huge amounts of data, build giant databases and 
online sharing systems. 


This was not lost on Technocrats outside the UN. One scientific group 
quickly concluded, 


The 2030 Agenda and its centrepiece, the Sustainable Development 
Goals (SDGs), call for a transformation in how societies interact with 
the planet and each other. This transformation will need new 
technologies, new knowledge and new ways of structuring societies 
and economies.© [Emphasis added] 


The UN issued a press release on the first day of the Summit before the 
ink was dry on the 2030 Agenda. If it were not for the discussion here, you 
would think that the world was saved and that Utopia had arrived: 


A bold new global agenda to end poverty by 2030 and pursue a 
sustainable future was unanimously adopted today by the 193 Member 
States of the United Nations at the start of a three-day Summit on 
Sustainable Development. 


The historic adoption of the new Sustainable Development Agenda, 
with 17 global goals at its core, was met with a thunderous standing 
ovation from delegations that included many of the more than 150 
world leaders who will be addressing the Summit. 


It was a scene that was, and will be, transmitted to millions of people 
around the world through television, social media, radio, cinema 
advertisements, and cell phone messages. 


Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “It is an agenda for people, to 
end poverty in all its forms. It is an agenda for shared prosperity, 


peace and partnership (that) conveys the urgency of climate action 
(and) is rooted in gender equality and respect for the rights of all. 
Above all, it pledges to leave no one behind.” 


Thus, the framework for global transformation by 2030 was chiseled on 
tablets like the Ten Commandments and were then held up for universal 
adoration. 


But was the 2030 Agenda really hammered out by representatives from 
195 nations as it was claimed? Hardly. 


The actual creation of the 2030 Agenda is easily traced® directly back to 
an earlier UN initiative called the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on 
the Post-2015 Development Agenda that met in July 2012 and concluded on 
May 30, 2013. There were only 27 elite members of this group, each 
handpicked from around the world and summarily appointed by the UN 
Director-General Ban Ki-moon. 


The U.S. was represented by John Podesta, founder of the Center for 
American Progress and member of the elitist Trilateral Commission who 
subsequently went to work for President Obama as a Senior Policy 
Consultant on Climate Change. These 27 “eminent persons” delivered their 
concluding document to be formally ratified by yet another UN group, the 
High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development that met from June 
26 through July 8, 2015. 


After ratification, it was this very document that was presented for a 
global up-or-down vote on September 25 with no further changes allowed. 
This was hardly a democratic process. Essentially, it was just 27 people, 
including Trilateral John Podesta, who determined the framework for the 
world system. 


In a side note, John Podesta has driven climate and environment policy 
in the US almost single-handedly for three decades. Under Bill Clinton, he 
implemented the “Roadless Rule” that shut down public roads within 59 
million acres of U.S. Forest Service managed land. He also set policy for the 
establishment of 19 conservation areas and national monuments. While 
serving under Barack Obama he was behind the Executive Orders that 
created another 16 national monuments and he drove Obama’s campaign to 
shut down the coal industry. In fact, Obama’s entire environmental and 
climate change policy was attributed to Podesta. Fellow Trilateral 
Commission member Bruce Babbitt, who served as Secretary of the 
Interior under Bill Clinton, stated that “The hidden hand of John Podesta is 
involved in every environmental advancement accomplished in the Clinton 
and Obama administrations.” 


Paris Climate Agreement 


Just six weeks after the close of the Sustainable Development Summit in 
New York, the UN Climate Change Conference convened in Paris, France 
on December 12, 2015. This gave birth to the Paris Agreement On Climate 
Change. The UN agency that sponsored this was the Framework Convention 
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), headed by Christiana Figueres. It is 
important to remember that Figueres is the same person who earlier called 
for the replacement of Capitalism and Free Enterprise with Sustainable 
Development. 


The Paris Agreement was purposefully not called a treaty in order to 
avoid a ratification vote by the U.S. Senate, which most likely would have 
failed. The Senate and previous Administrations had resisted similar climate 
initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol adopted by the UN in Kyoto, Japan 
on December 11, 1997. According to the U.S. Constitution, all Treaties must 
be ratified by the Senate by two-thirds vote. 


The strategy worked. On September 3, 2016, despite an outpouring of 
protests from Americans and elected representatives, President Obama took 
unilateral action by meeting in China with Premier Xi and a UN Delegation 
that included the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. During that meeting, 
Obama signed the Paris Agreement, creating a legally-binding obligation for 
the American people. 


The activation mechanism on the Paris Agreement was unique, requiring 
commitments from 55 nations that represent 55 percent of the carbon 
emissions of the entire world. Together, China and the U.S. represent 
approximately 40 percent of global emissions, so this signing ceremony 
pushed the Agreement to an earlier start than the original 2020 target. As a 
result, Obama and Xi can rightfully claim that they were the global leaders 
who pushed the Paris Agreement into full force. 


Undaunted by criticism at home, Obama bragged that “someday we may 
see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”© 


The 12-page Agreement contains 29 Articles that call for nations to 


¢ Phase out greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 


¢ Implement policies to adapt development to climate change and plan 
for problems that are created by it 


¢ Redirect financial funding away from dirty fossil fuels and towards 
clean forms of development 


¢ Insure that all actions align with Paris and the Sustainable 
Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. 


In summary, the Paris Agreement solidified two key elements for the 
UN’s planetary troika: first, fear of the consequences of inaction on climate 
change was made a permanent fixture throughout the world and second, it 
provided a succinct rationale for the need to implement the Sustainable 
Development Goals. 


New Urban Agenda - Habitat II 


The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban 
Development (Habitat III) was held in Quito, Ecuador from October 17-20, 
2016, and produced its key document called New Urban Agenda. This was a 
monster meeting with over 30,000 people from 167 countries receiving UN 
accreditation to attend. There were 1,000 events, 8 plenary sessions, 6 high- 
level Roundtable sessions, 16 Stakeholder Roundtables, 22 Special Sessions, 
an Urban Journalism Academy and 59 UN events.© Plus, there were at least 
another 20,000 non-accredited attendees that participated in a host of 
unofficial gatherings around the city. 


The resulting 2030 Agenda was 30 pages in length containing 175 
paragraphs. Every conceivable aspect, feature and function of life is 
addressed in one way or another. As would be expected, science and 
technology are prominently featured, as is planning, trade, land use, energy 
and financing. Some areas deserve our special attention in this discussion. 


Urban spatial planning. This term is often synonymous with urban 
planning but is especially focused on land use, transport and environmental 
planning. In particular, it focuses on influencing or manipulating the 
distribution of people within the community. The European Regional/Spatial 
Planning Charter states, 


Regional/spatial planning gives geographical expression to the 
economic, social, cultural and ecological policies of society. It is at 
the same time a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a 
policy developed as an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach 
directed towards a balanced regional development and the physical 
organisation of space according to an overall strategy 


Whereas traditional planning was mostly an architectural practice, spatial 
planning has its roots in scientific discipline and is closely correlated with 
Technocracy. 


Geospatial information systems. Stationary features of traditional 
geography are insufficient for urban spatial planning. People and vehicles 
move about, and so their ‘geography’ is changed from minute to minute. 
Geospatial information systems track the movement of people and things, 
and to the extent possible, the identity of the things being tracked. This is the 


main driver for the massive use of sensors in smart cities that track 
everything in real time, including people. 


Urban and territorial planning. Within the discussion of urban spatial 
planning it is clearly stated that cities are not the only focus of the New 
Urban Agenda. It includes all adjacent territories, including rural areas. For 
instance, Paragraph 96 states, in part, 


We will support the development of sustainable regional infrastructure 

projects that stimulate sustainable economic productivity, promoting 
equitable growth of regions across the urban-rural continuum. 
{emphasis added] 


This points out the insufficiency of the title, New Urban Agenda because 
the Technocrat masters intend to control everything. Thus, if you live in a 
rural area, you will be arbitrarily assigned to a city region and will become 
subject to it rules, restrictions, land use policies, etc. 


Science and Technology. The UN uses an acronym, STI, which stands 
for Science, Technology and Innovation, and it is actually the only hope, 
even if false, that Sustainable Development will ever work. Further, the 
hope is mostly in future technology that has not yet been developed or 
tested. This can be seen in the following Paragraphs: 


157. We will support science, research and innovation, including a 
focus on social, technological, digital and nature-based innovation, 
robust science-policy interfaces in urban and territorial planning and 
policy formulation and institutionalized mechanisms for sharing and 
exchanging information, knowledge and expertise, including the 
collection, analysis, standardization and dissemination of 
geographically based, community-collected, high-quality, timely and 
reliable data disaggregated by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, 
migration status, disability, geographic location and_ other 
characteristics relevant in national, subnational and local contexts. 


158. We will strengthen data and statistical capacities at the national, 
subnational and local levels to effectively monitor progress achieved 

in the implementation of sustainable urban development policies and 

strategies and to inform decision- making and appropriate reviews. 


159. We will support the role and enhanced capacity of national, 
subnational and local governments in data collection, mapping, 
analysis and dissemination and in promoting evidence-based 
governance, building on a shared knowledge base using both globally 
comparable as well as locally generated data, including through 
censuses, household surveys, population registers, community-based 
monitoring processes and other relevant sources, disaggregated by 


income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, 
geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national, 
subnational and local contexts. 


No one left behind. This is also a key concept within the Sustainable 
Development Goals, that no one is left behind. A closely related word is 
“inclusive”. Of course, if alleviating poverty is the goal, we would feel bad 
for anyone who might be left out, and likewise for the other Utopia-like 
goals: jobs with dignity, life-long educations, affordable housing, healthy 
life, etc. However, to a Technocrat, this phrase has a different meaning and 
purpose. The 1938 definition of Technocracy stated, “Technocracy is the 
science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social 
mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire 
population...”& Note the use of “entire social mechanism” and “entire social 
population.” It was a basic assumption of Technocracy that every single 
person must be included in their socially-engineered society; no exceptions 
or holdouts were allowed. 


One academic journal hit the nail on the head when it wrote, 


Informal settlements house around one-quarter of the world’s urban 
population. This means roughly 1 billion urban dwellers live in 
settlements that have emerged outside of the state’s control. 
[emphasis added] 


There may be as many as 2 billion people, or 25 percent of earth’s 
population, who currently live outside the system. Can you see the economic 
dilemma in the eyes of the global elite? Those outsiders don’t contribute or 
add to the economy, but they do take up resources to survive. The answer? 
Paragraph 42 spins it this way: “Sustainable and inclusive urban prosperity 
and opportunities for all.” 


Conclusion 


The purpose of this chapter is to reveal the latest monolithic strategy that 
has been launched by the United Nations in order to transform the world’s 
economic system. This is the first stage of Christiana Figueres’ boast on 
February 3, 2015 that they (the United Nations) were embarked on 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.” Thus, they revealed a) intention, b) a defined goal and 
c) a timeline. What more do we need to understand what is going on? 


Virtually all of the UN, academic and NGO literature produced since the 
Habitat III conference has linked all three conferences together. It is a troika 
of coordinated strategy designed to accomplish specific goals within a 


particular time frame. The German Development Institute provided a perfect 
example: 


Even if the Paris Agreement, 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda do 
not bring about a sustainable transformation in and of themselves, 
they provide major, internationally binding points of reference which 
can and must serve to catalyse transformative policies at all levels of 
action. In order to integrate climate, sustainability and urbanisation 
agendas in a targeted way to this end, it is pivotal for each of the 
multilateral pledges to develop an impact at national and local 
levels.~ 


Indeed, these three conferences have reenergized, refocused and re- 
strategized the entire planet into a single-minded agenda: Technocracy, aka 
Sustainable Development. 


52 United Nations, New Urban Agenda, 2017. 
53 Op Cit., p. 61. 
54 Ibid., p. 173. 


55 The previous chapter recorded the UN’s blunt intention to change the current economic model, transforming it 
into Sustainable Development, which is Technocracy. 


56 “Former Norwegian prime minister stresses sustainable development during speech”, The Lantern, September 
29, 2015. 


57 “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, Sustainable Development 
Knowledge Platform, UN.org. 


58 “How science should feed into 2030 Agenda”, G.M.B. Akash, May 4, 2016, SciDev.Net website. 


59 “Historic New Sustainable Development Agenda Unanimously Adopted by 193 UN Members”, UN press 
release, Sept. 25, 2015. 


60 See https://www.un.org/sg/en/management/beyond2015.shtml 
61 Shogren,“John Podesta: Legacy Maker”, High Country News, May 25, 2015. 


62 “President Obama: The United States Formally Enters the Paris Agreement”, Sept. 3, 2016, See website 
www.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 


63 See www.habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda website. 

64 “Torremolinos Charter”, European regional/spatial planning Charter, P. 13 

65 “What is Technocracy”, The Technocrat Magazine, 1930. 

66 “When planning falls short: the challenges of informal settlements”, The Conversation, December 5, 2016. 


67 “Paris Climate Agreement, 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda: the future of transformative policies”, 
German Development Institute Annual Report 2015-2016, P. 17. 


4 Tue RISE OF THE GLOBAL CITY 


The world city as an analytical concept was developed in the 1970s 
and caught on in the 1980s as a new frame within which to grasp 


globalization.~ 


W hen the Trilateral Commission was established in 1973, 
interdependence between nation-states was never a fait accompli, 
but it was nonetheless heavily promoted by the Commission and its 
members as being true. As the Commission subsequently began to gain 
political influence in the three main trading areas of the world (Japan, North 
America and Europe), several things were put into action. 


First, protectionist mechanisms and trade barriers such as tariffs and 
import taxes began to fall under the guise of ‘Free Trade’. Second, trade 
agreements were created that forced signers to adhere to common trading 
rules. This gave rise, for instance, to the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
in 1995. Third, a process of deregulation of industries was instituted that 
effectively nullified the power of nation-states to regulate commerce. 


In the United States, it was President James Earl Carter who finally 
kick-started deregulation of the Transportation industry. Major intellectual 
studies were produced by the University of Chicago (tightly associated with 
Rockefeller interests), the Brookings Institution (also associated with 
Rockefeller interests) and the American Enterprise Institute. Before his term 
completed, Carter had sponsored and signed the Airline Deregulation Act in 
October 1978, the Staggers Rail Act in October 1980 and the Motor Carrier 
Act in July 1980. 


But, it didn’t stop with Carter. Ronald Reagan (with Vice-President 
George H.W. Bush, a Trilateral member) went on to support and sign the 
Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, the Ocean Shipping Act of 1984 and 
the Surface Freight Forwarder Deregulation Act of 1986. 


Last, Trilateral Commission member and President William Jefferson 
Clinton promoted and signed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. 


What was one of the key elements to globalized ‘Free Trade’? 
Transportation! Why was this industry deregulated? To take it out of the 
hands of the government and turn it over to the industry itself. Thus, they 
could set their own regulations, processes and rates as it suited their 
interests. Interdependence between nations was well on its way to becoming 
a reality. 


The next three major industries to be deregulated included Energy, 


Communications and Finance. Taken together with Transportation, this 
completes the view of what globalists call ‘infrastructure’. Government was 
stripped of its regulatory authority, which was ceded lock, stock and barrel 
to the cause of globalization, run by the same global elite who were 
dedicated to creating the Trilateral Commission’s New International 
Economic Order. 


Well, of course they wanted control over the infrastructure! They 
couldn’t move forward without it. And because there were three regions 
represented in the Trilateral Commission membership, it shouldn’t be a 
surprise to learn that similar legislation and deregulation took place in Japan 
and Europe as well where governments had been similarly infiltrated by the 
local Commission members. Thus, this provided for a common 
infrastructure between the trading partners, insuring quick and reliable 
transportation of goods and services without meddling interference from 
national governments. In modern parlance, this is collectively called the 
‘supply chain’. 


Infrastructure is going to be a major theme in this book because it is one 
of the most hotly debated and sought after topics in the world of 
globalization. Today, however, the bulk of discussion about infrastructure 
has pivoted away from the nation-state toward global cities. It is cities that 
must have fluid infrastructure internally and also externally in order to 
connect them into networks of cities. It is cities that must be managed, 
squeezing out inefficiencies and excesses in order to milk the maximum 
amount of profit from each square mile. 


Cities of the past were operated by elected representatives of the people 
who were responsive to citizen needs and aspirations. Cities of the future 
will increasingly be run by corporations, investors and social engineers who 
have different ends in mind. How is this so? First, external parties plant 
expectations that a certain level of infrastructure is needed in order to stay 
competitive and grow. Second, as the cities face their own reality of 
insufficient capital to build out such a grandiose infrastructure, Public- 
Private Partnerships are offered as a means of finance and development 
expertise. Funds are then provided by ‘private’ parties to complete 
infrastructure projects with a long list of extra conditionalities that 
essentially diminish sovereignty for the people and increase control of the 
non-elected parties. In other words, cities are being taken over by those 
entities who want to use the resources of the cities to serve their own 
ends. 


One key side-effect of globalization has been to drive rural people into 
cities. Major factories or high-tech startups are rarely found in rural areas. 
Indeed, commerce is often tightly correlated to population centers. On one 


hand, cities provide labor pools to tap into in order to scale smaller 
enterprises into larger ones. On the other hand, people seeking their fortune 
gravitate to cities to find better jobs and opportunities. In addition, Gen-Xers 
through Millennials are often attracted to urban living because of lifestyle, 
cultural opportunities and relationships. 


When we lay modern globalization at the feet of members of groups like 
the Trilateral Commission, we don’t have to speculate as to whether or not 
this was an intended policy: it was! 


In 1992, the Agenda 21 document stated, for instance, 


By the turn of the century, the majority of the world's population will 
be living in cities. While urban settlements, particularly in developing 
countries, are showing many of the symptoms of the global 
environment and development crisis, they nevertheless generate 60 per 
cent of gross national product and, if properly managed, can develop 
the capacity to sustain their productivity, improve the living conditions 
of their residents and manage natural resources in a sustainable 
way. 


Because 60 percent of economic activity was seen as being generated in 
cities, the majority of future economic growth would likewise come from 
cities. With rural areas producing disproportionately to their population, 
there was only one way to increase overall productivity, namely, to increase 
the density of existing cities and move more people into them. The above 
condition “if properly managed” provides insight into the modern movement 
toward Global Cities (of size) which are also Smart Cities (of design). 


Twenty years later in 2002, the global consulting firm McKinsey & 
Company narrowed the focus by stating that “over the next 13 years, 600 
cities will account for nearly 65 percent of global GDP growth.” More 
recently it noted that “by 2025 megacities of 10 million or more people will 
house more than half the world's population and contribute more than half of 
global GDP.” 


In 2016 the World Economic Forum provides the latest insight: 


Our cities cover just 2% of the Earth's surface, but are currently home 
to more than 50% of the world’s population, generate more than 80% 
of the world’s GDP, use 75% of the world’s natural resources, 
consume 75% of global energy supply and produce approximately 
75% of global CO2 emissions. 


Thus, the GDP concentration of cities rose from 60% to 65% to 80% in 
the span of 28 years. Is this really the case or just wishful thinking? 
Probably a little of both, but it is clearly the perception of the global elite. 


Indeed, cities are increasingly seen as the only fertile harvest ground of 
profit for global corporations which is precisely why the entire universe of 
development wonks are focused on developing cities. This includes the 
myriads of NGOs, universities, think-tanks, the United Nations, global 
corporations and consultant groups like McKinsey. In the latter’s case, one 
can see the green gleam in their eyes when they write, 


To support our work with clients, we carry out independent research 
and draw on an extensive body of in-house knowledge. The McKinsey 
Global Institute has conducted studies of urbanization in China, India, 
and Latin America, and its work on cities globally has culminated in 
City Scope, the largest database of its kind, covering more than 2,000 
metropolitan areas. We also play an active part in the debate on the 
future of cities through collaborations with non-profits, foundations, 
and think tanks. Our partnership with Columbia University and 
Tsinghua University in the Urban China Initiative led to the 
development of the urban sustainability index, a new tool for 
evaluating how cities in developing countries are balancing growth 
and sustainability. 


More specifically, McKinsey lists its offerings to cities and related 
parties: 


We work with mayors, urban planners, foundations, nonprofits, 
utilities, and businesses to help create sustainable cities. Our role 
includes: 


e supporting mayors and city authorities in establishing a 
fact base, defining sustainable economic development, and 
delivering solutions tailored to local needs 

e working with water, power, and waste utilities to improve 
services, minimize waste, and reduce a_ city’s 
environmental footprint 

e assisting private sector clients such as_ real-estate 
developers, infrastructure providers, and __ logistics 
companies in engaging with cities and creating solutions 
that support sustainability goals 

e helping shape strategies to capture growth opportunities 
by developing district development plans, revitalizing 
older cities, and building greenfield cities that minimize 
their carbon footprint while attracting new jobs and 


industries 


This emerging science of global cities is being pursued in different 


places through an increasingly connected global community of 
scholars and analysts that includes at least the Chinese Academy of 
Sciences in Beijing, the Mori Memorial Foundation in Tokyo, the 
Brookings Institution and the World Bank in Washington, D.C., the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, 
UN-Habitat in Nairobi, the wider United Nations and the Ford 
Foundation in New York, the LSE Cities Group in London, the 
McKinsey Global Institute in New York, the World Economic Forum 
in Geneva, United Cities and Local Governments in Barcelona, and 
the African Centre for Cities in Cape Town. In addition to this work 
are more than 200 indexes, benchmark reports, and global reviews of 
cities that are produced by a wide range of organizations, including 
the Globalization and World Cities Group, the Financial Times, the 
Economist, Jones Lang LaSalle, Mercer, Mastercard, 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and 
many more. [emphasis added] 


The ‘emerging science of global cities’ belongs solely to the realm of 
Technocrats and their practitioners. It harkens back to the 1937 definition of 
Technocracy, 


Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific 
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute 
goods and services to the entire population of this continent. For the 
first time in human history it will be done as a scientific, technical, 
engineering problem.98 


UN Habitat-III 


The United Nations first fixed its eyes squarely on urban development 
with the establishment of the United Nations Habitat and Human 
Settlements Foundation (UNHHSF) on January 1, 1975, just eight months 
after passing Resolution 3201: Declaration on the Establishment of a New 
International Economic Order. At the time, UNHHSF was placed under the 
UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), but after the first international 
conference (Habitat I) was held in Vancouver, Canada in 1976, it took on a 
life of its own as the Commission on Human Settlements and the Centre for 
Human Settlements. 


Habitat II was held twenty years later in 1996 in Istanbul, Turkey and 
incorporated the newly minted Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 
doctrines that originated from the Rio Declaration on Environment and 
Development held in 1992. 


Finally, on January 1, 2002, the UN passed General Assembly Resolution 


A/56/206 that officially birthed UN-Habitat, the United Nations Human 
Settlements Programme, as a full fledged program within the UN system. 


The scope and influence of UN-Habitat is immense within the UN 
framework and in terms of global influence. According the the current UN- 
Habitat web site, 


“UN-Habitat, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, is 
mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote socially and 
environmentally sustainable towns and cities. It is the focal point for 
all urbanization and human settlement matters within the UN 
system. "2 


In October 2016, twenty years after Habitat II, the third iteration of 
Habitat (predictably called Habitat-II1) was held in Quito, Ecuador and the 
nation-members of the world signed onto its key document called the New 
Urban Agenda. 


The calls to action contained in the New Urban Agenda are clear and 
comprehensive: 


We adopt this New Urban Agenda as a collective vision and political 
commitment to promote and realize sustainable urban development, 
and as a historic opportunity to leverage the key role of cities and 
human settlements as drivers of sustainable development in an 
increasingly urbanized world. 


Furthermore, it reiterated that its scope is 


universal, participatory and people-centred, protects the planet and 
has a long-term vision, setting out priorities and actions at the global, 
regional, national, subnational and local levels that Governments and 
other relevant stakeholders in every country can adopt based on their 
needs. 


In essence, this historic compact gives the UN the right to impose its 
Sustainable Development action plan in every local community on the 
planet, and this is exactly what it plans to do. 


However, it is misguided to think that the New Urban Agenda is about 
cities only while ignoring the rural world. Paragraph 49 makes this painfully 
clear: 


We commit ourselves to supporting territorial systems that integrate 
urban and rural functions into the national and subnational spatial 
frameworks and the systems of cities and human settlements, thus 
promoting sustainable management and use of natural resources and 
land, ensuring reliable supply and value chains that connect urban 


and rural supply and demand to foster equitable regional development 
across the urban-rural continuum and fill social, economic and 
territorial gaps. 


Thus, the city is seen at the center of all surrounding rural acreage, which 
is blithely swept into the city’s web of control. Rural areas will simply be 
assigned to their proximate city and then fall under all the same rules and 
regulations that control the city. Not content with just rural control, the New 
Urban Agenda expands further to “sustainable management of resources, 
including land, water (oceans, seas and freshwater), energy, materials, 
forests and food.” 


Globalist rhetoric is seen peeking through with statements like 
“facilitating effective trade links across the urban-rural continuum and 
ensuring that small-scale farmers and fishers are linked to local, subnational, 
national, regional and global value chains and markets.” [emphasis added] 


In total, there are 175 numbered statements in the New Urban Agenda. 
Some are meaningless platitudes but others contain the hard-core intent. 
When taken as a whole without any preconceived ideas, the UN is 
promoting globalization from start to finish, where cities become tightly-run 
work centers or labor camps, supply chains deliver products to and from 
other cities with maximum precision and all rural areas are enlisted to keep 
the urban bound workers nourished and pacified. 


For those who have ever worried that the United Nations promotes some 
sort of global political system, that could not be further from the truth. 
Sustainable Development is purely economic, not political, and it is 
designed to serve the economic and monetary interests of the global 
corporate community. It does not return political power to the citizenry but 
rather usurps it by vesting control to corporate Technocrats through Public- 
Private Partnerships. 


1976 | UN Habitat I, Vancouver, Canada. The first UN conference on Human Settlements 


1992 | Agenda 21: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 


1996 | UN Habitat II, Istanbul, Turkey 
2000 | Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 


2001 | Habitat +5 Review. Appraising progress of five years after Habitat II 





2002 | World Urban Forum (WUF). The first session of WUF 


2012 | Rio+20: UN Conference on Sustainable Development. Stated that the battle for sustainable 
development will be won or lost in the cities. 


2015 | Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Replaced MDGs from 2000 and created a 


standalone goal (11) on cities 


2016 | Habitat III: The third UN conference on Human Settlements. 


Table 1: Timeline of Key UN Events 





New Urban Agenda 


Formalized in October 2016, the New Urban agenda has been billed 
as being “responsible for establishing the policy frameworks that will 
guide the governance of the world’s cities for the coming 20 years.’ 


This may seem a bit egotistical and grandiose, but this is the stated goal 
of the UN and all of its stakeholder organizations. It seeks to impose a 
common framework that all cities, large or small, will follow. It includes all 
the supporting principles of the 1992 Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda created 
in 2017 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Indeed, the New Urban 
Agenda is the capstone of all preceding efforts to control humanity, and is 
much more comprehensive than any previous attempts. 


The New Urban Agenda is also a massive power grab. The official 
document uses the word ‘regional’ 45 times. The word ‘local’ appears 138 
times and subnational 64 times. The phrase ‘local and regional government” 
is mentioned 8 times. On the other hand, the word ‘national’ is mentioned 
only 73 times and usually within the context of the smaller entities. This is 
clearly designed to encourage cities to take control over their own destinies 
and to shun state or national control. 


Thus, a city can now unilaterally declare itself to be a ‘sanctuary city’ 
even it is defies immigration law or the Constitution. Over 240 cities 
declared support for the Paris Climate Agreement even though it defied 
national policy of having withdrawn from the accord. Many larger cities and 
states have negotiated their own trade agreements with foreign governments, 
even though Federal law prohibits it. Most U.S. cities have implemented 
General Plans that contain policies derived directly from the United Nations’ 
Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda, Sustainable Development, New Urban Agenda, 
etc. 


Cities today are seeking their own identity and control over their own 
destiny regardless of national or state authority to the contrary. The larger 


the city, the stronger the rebellion. In recent years, the concept of a city-state 
(a city that with its surrounding territory forms an independent state) only 
applied to Singapore, Monaco and Vatican City. Today, New York, Los 
Angeles, San Francisco and others are speaking about themselves in terms 
of the city-state. This doesn’t mean that they have arrived, but it certainly 
highlights the struggle to get free from all other constraints and enter into 
the elite of other global cities of equal magnitude. 


How have so many American cities been seduced into these un- 
American, anti-Free Enterprise policies? We need to look no further than to 
a non-governmental organization (NGO) called ICLEI, which originally was 
an acronym standing for International Council for Local Environmental 
Initiatives. It now defines itself as “Local Governments for Sustainability.” 

ICLEI has huge influence over 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities, 450 large 
cities and 650 smaller cities in 80 countries* ICLEI’s services to cities are 
comprehensive: 


ICLEI works to help local governments achieve a more sustainable 
future for their communities, through reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions, water or waste management, sustainable procurement, 
securing biodiversity and many other tangible improvements in local 
sustainability. To help local governments to meet their self-defined 
goals, we provide software tools, trainings, technical assistance, 
guidebooks, as well as vibrant peer networks where local government 


staff can share challenges and best practices.“ [emphasis added] 


However, ICLEI is completely disingenuous about a local government’s 
‘self-defined goals’ because the only goals available to choose from are the 
17 Sustainable Development Goals published by the UN. If those are your 
goals, then ICLEI will happily smother you with rhetoric, tools, consultants 
and conferences all designed to transform your city into a model of 
Sustainable Development. If those are not your goals, ICLEI will drop you 
like a hot potato. 


ICLEI is unabashed in its support of local governments only. It 
completely bypasses all national governments and speaks directly to local 
officials. It is not insignificant that ICLEI hides behind the phrase ‘voluntary 
participation’ so that nobody can accuse it of forcing policies down 
anyone’s throat. In a sense, this is true because ICLEI has no authority to do 
anything for anybody: they simply whisper in a city manager’s ear how 
great it would be if his or her city were sustainable. 

This writer has had experience with one city’s general plan where a 


sustainability consultant from out of town presented the city manager with a 
dilemma. The consultant asserted that it was just a matter of time before 


they were massively sued by some environmental organization over 
environmental abuses, and the only way they could prepare to defend 
against such lawsuits would be to have a General Plan in place that focuses 
on Sustainable Development. Of course, only that consultant’s company had 
the skills to create such a General Plan that would offer the proper 
protection. The veiled threat of certain harm in order to sell a particular 
General Plan is akin to extortion, but it has worked time after time in cities 
and towns across America, to the extent that one can hardly find a plan that 
isn’t riddled with Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policies... all 
‘voluntary’, of course! 


All of the New Urban Agenda network is designed to support the upward 
progression of cities toward becoming global cities. There may be many 
stages and necessary transformations in order to get there, but the road map 
is provided. According to Dr. Parag Khanna, who ranks cities based on 
goods, services, capital, people and data, there are currently only eight 
world-class global cities: San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, London, 
Dubai, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore. Other experts would include 
Seoul, Toronto, Zurich, Beijing and Helsinki. Is your city a wannabe global 
player? Then these are the cities that you must connect with. 


One thing is certain, however: all global cities are, by definition, 
controlled by Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and the 
New Urban Agenda. In the transition, cities are intended to replace the 
nation-state as the primary unit of global organizational structure. World 
Economic Forum noted that ICLEI is not alone in the drive to restructure the 
world: 


There are already over 200 inter-city networks around the world that 
are agitating for a new urban agenda. One of the most prominent, 
United Cities and Local Government seeks to promote connectivity 
between cities and agitate on behalf of them. A new coalition called 
the Global Parliament of Mayors is also urging cities everywhere to 
take advantage of the devolution revolution. After all cities no longer 


need to wait and ask for permission to exert their urban sovereignty.2 


The New Urban Agenda is a framework for the social organization 
people in cities regardless of population. It specified three guiding 
principles: 

1. Leave no one behind, ensure urban equality and eradicate poverty 


2. Achieve sustainable and inclusive urban prosperity and opportunities 
for all 


3. Foster ecological and resilient cities and human settlements. 


The World Economic Forum describes the three key components that 
would provide the direction for this transformation: 


e Urban Rules and Regulations: The outcomes in terms of 
quality of urban settlement depend on the set of rules and 
regulations that are framed and made effective. 
Strengthening urban legislation, providing predictability 
and directive to the urban development plans to enable 
social and economic progression. 

e Urban Planning and Design: Strengthen urban and 
territorial planning to best utilize the spatial dimension of 
the urban form and deliver the urban advantage. 

e Municipal Finance: Establishing effective financing 
frameworks, enabling strengthened municipal finance and 
local fiscal systems in order to create, sustain and share 


the value generated by sustainable urban development.“ 


As simple as these sound, they cover 100 percent of the requirements for 
urban transformation: Regulations, Design and Finance. All three of these 
can be seen in Paragraph 5 of the NUA: “By readdressing the way cities and 
human settlements are planned, designed, financed, developed, governed 
and managed, the New Urban Agenda will help to...”. This is not just a few 
helpful tips or useful resources, but rather a total rewrite of city life from the 
ground up. To make it somehow palatable to the reader, the platitudes are 
then poured on: 


“..will help to end poverty and hunger in all its forms and 
dimensions; reduce inequalities; promote sustained, inclusive and 
sustainable economic growth; achieve gender equality and the 
empowerment of all women and girls in order to fully harness their 
vital contribution to sustainable development; improve human health 
and wellbeing; foster resilience; and protect the environment. 
[emphasis added] 


In other words, if you want to end poverty, have good health and protect 
the environment, then you should simply turn your city over to them to be 
“planned, designed, financed, developed, governed and managed” by them 
for your benefit. Who would fall for such a thinly disguised con game? 
Apparently the 167 nations who signed the document. 


This proposition is repeated in Paragraph 15 by promising to “Readdress 
the way we plan, finance, develop, govern and manage cities and human 
settlements, recognizing sustainable urban and territorial development as 
essential to the achievement of sustainable development and prosperity for 


all.” [emphasis added] 


Miscellany 


Dr. William Levingston was actually an itinerant salesman with a phony 
name who created a concoction of oil and laxative and branded it as a cure 
for cancer. Since cancer was a dreaded and usually fatal disease, people 
would buy and try literally anything for a cure. He would explain that if his 
miracle cure was strong enough to beat cancer, then it would most certainly 
take care of a whole lot of other diseases as well! When William came to a 
new town, he would mesmerize and trick people into buying his “miracle 
cure.” As soon as anyone questioned the his phony operation, he would ride 
out much faster than he had originally arrived. William was indeed a fraud 
and a con artist, but he somehow always managed to escape arrest or 
lynching. He died in 1906 at the ripe old age of 95. Earlier in life, he 
reportedly bragged “I cheat my boys every chance I get. I want to make ‘em 
sharp.” 


However, Levingston’s name was indeed a fraud. His real name was 
William Avery Rockefeller, Sr. and one of those ‘sharp’ sons was John D. 
Rockefeller, who was soon to become the richest man in America and 
grandfather of David A. Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission 
in 1973. 


The entire fraud being perpetrated by the United Nations, with its deep 
roots into the Rockefeller family and with its modern genesis in the 
Trilateral Commission and Technocracy, smacks of the Rockefeller snake- 
oil legacy dating all the way up the family tree into the 1800s. 


The structure of today’s con is the same even if the scale of it is far 
greater: Utopia is yours if you simply give up control over all your 
production and consumption, ie, the entire economy of the world! 
Unfortunately, people are just as gullible today as they were back then. 


90 Clark , Greg (2016-11-29). Global Cities: A Short History (The Short Histories) (p. 95). Brookings Institution 
Press. 


91 United Nations, Agenda 21, Improving Human Settlement Management, Basis for Action, Section B.7.13. 


92 McKinsey&Co., Global cities of the future: An interactive map, June, 2012. (See 
http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/global-cities-of-the-future-an-interactive-map) 


93 McKinsey&Co., Sustainable Cities, Website http://www.mckinsey.com/ 


94 World Economic Forum, “As the world descends on Ecuador, what is Habitat III?”, Alice Charles, October 17, 
2016. 


95 Ibid. 

96 Ibid. 

97 Op cit. , p. 6. 

98 The Technocrat Magazine, Technocracy, Inc., Vol. 3, No. 4, September 1937. 
99 Website, https://unhabitat.org/. 


100 RioOnWatch, The Future of Urban Policy: The UN’s New Urban Agenda, (http://www.rioonwatch.org/? 
p=31275). 

101 ICLEI webiste (http://archive.iclei.org/index.php?id=12366). 

102 Ibid. 


103 Cities, not nation states, will determine our future survival, World Economic Forum, June 2, 2017. 


104 World Economic Forum, “As the world descents on Equador, what is Habitat III?”, Alice Charles, October 17, 
2016. 


5 THE SMART CITY STEAMROLLER 


In the end, the smart city will destroy democracy. Like Google, they'll 
have enough data not to have to ask you what you want.2 - Leo 
Hollis 


W hen I was around twelve years old, I apparently said 
something in resistance against my mother’s authority and she 
replied, “Don’t get smart with me, buster.” A couple of years later, a teacher 
commented that I was very smart and congratulated me on getting a good 
grade. Here we see two very different semantic usages of the same word 
even though both are applied to a person and not a thing. 


When it comes to the term “Smart City”, what does smart mean? A city is 
a thing but is full of people; does it mean that all the people who live there 
are smart? Not likely. The most common thinking is that it is used as a 
contrast against the word “dumb”, where a smart city does things in an 
intelligent way but non-smart cities are reckoned to be dumb, backward or 
ignorant. This is actually a clever marketing nudge to get people to think 
favorably about the term without having the slightest idea of what it really 
means. After all, who wants to live in a “dumb city”? Of course, we all want 
our city to be smart! 


To the global corporate giants who are relentlessly promoting and 
designing today’s smart cities, S.M.A.R.T. is a commonly used acronym in 
project management jargon that stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, 
Relevant and Timely. Once you see this, you cannot unsee it: the global 
behemoths view the city as nothing more than a technology project where 
the herd of inhabitants must be micromanaged to achieve Attainable and 
Relevant goals in a Timely manner. As expected, monitoring technology and 
ubiquitous data collection are always woven into the city’s fabric in order to 
provide Measurable results. 


It is helpful at this point to remember The Technocrat’s 1938 definition 
of Technocracy: 


Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific 
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute 


goods and services to the entire population...# 


In short, smart city dogma is an application of the “science of social 
engineering.” The target is the entire social unit, in this case, the city. The 
object is to provide goods and services to all of its inhabitants. 


Who are these global corporations that champion smart cities? Here are a 


few notable leaders: IBM, Cisco, Siemens, Huawei, Microsoft, Nvidia, 
Hitachi and Oracle. For instance, Siemens’ website states, 


Urbanization, climate change, and globalization are posing multiple 
challenges to cities and city stakeholders. Ensuring mobility, 
improving energy efficiency, and increasing the economic value of 
buildings are among the main priorities when it comes to creating and 
managing urban infrastructure. Through digitalization, we enable 
cities to optimize the performance of buildings, transport and energy 
systems, while ensuring the safety and security of people and assets +2 


A 2013 press release from IBM notes that, 


IBM is helping cities around the world use the vast amount of 
information already available to deliver more efficient citizen services. 
IBM’s experience with cities continuously fuels more effective 
solutions and best practices to help city leaders transform their 


communities. U2 


A blog article on Nvidia’s website declares, 


Alibaba and Huawei join more than 50 of the world’s leading 
companies already using NVIDIA Metropolis“. Together, we’re 
taking advantage of the more than 1 billion video cameras that will be 


in our cities by the year 2020 to solve a dizzying array of problems #8 


You should get the idea that there is a feeding frenzy among smart city 
players to capture as much as possible of the $600 billion per year market. 
This is a market growing at an estimated twenty-four percent per year that 
will reach $2 trillion by 2023.4 The prestigious Mordor Intelligence further 
describes the scenario: 


Smart Cities and Internet of Things (IoT) are on their way to 
transform modern life. Smart Cities make effective use of IoT. IoT 
instills the required intelligence into basic building blocks of the city, 
and helps make it smart. In 2017, Smart Cities occupied major share 
in IoT. Smart Cities is expected to utilize loT to monitor energy usage, 
traffic flows, and water levels etc. The effective use of IoT in Smart 
Cities is totally reliant on the infrastructure development, and smart 
supply chain.“? [emphasis added] 


The ambitions of Smart City Technocrats must not be trivialized. They 
intend to “transform modern life” by integrating data collected from all 
devices connected to the so-called Internet of Things, into AI programs that 
act as control centers for various city functions. 


What is the Internet of Things (oT)? It is the network of physical devices 


such as appliances, smartphones, vehicles, sensors, actuators, RFID 
embedded chips, surveillance cameras, license plate readers, listening 
devices, etc. These devices receive and transmit data via WiFi or cellular 
connection. 


In one article, “NVIDIA’s plan to turn data from 500 million cameras 
into AI gold”, it is noted that there will be one billion surveillance cameras 
installed globally by 2020.4! That’s one camera for every seven or eight 
humans on earth! The amount of data generated from these cameras is 
incomprehensible, but using advanced AI tuned especially for images and 
running on its computer chips, NVIDIA will give its city-clients tools to 
track everyone, everywhere and in real time. 


The Smart Grid initiative started in 2009 by President Barack Obama 
kick started the IoT for energy. By now, most Americans have seen WiFi- 
enabled Smart Meters installed on their homes and businesses. These meters 
are a gateway to collect data from energy-consuming appliances and also to 
transmit commands to regulate them. Theoretically, every refrigerator 
washer, dryer, thermostat, motor, computer or TV can be monitored 
continuously and simultaneously by your local utility and anyone else they 
choose to send your data to. 


As autonomous vehicles gain market influence, they will be connected to 
a central control point but also to each other as they move about on city 
streets. Immense amounts of data will be collected and analyzed in real time. 


Smartphones are already connecting hundreds of millions of people with 
not only other people but also with their inanimate devices like health and 
fitness tracking and smart home devices, their cars, sound systems, etc. 


Collectively, all of these devices are considered the IoT, which Mordor 
claims “instills the required intelligence into basic building blocks of the 
city, and helps make it smart.” Building blocks, large or small, are the 
elements that construct a city from the top down and bottom up, using 
advanced technology as the mortar. This is exactly how these giant tech 
companies approach the problem of city design and urban planning. 


In fact, entire cities are being created from scratch to showcase Smart 
City technology. The city of Songdo was founded in 2003 as a public- 
private partnership within a Free Economic Zone (FEZ) in South Korea. It 
sits on 1,400 acres, has room for 250,000 citizens, all of whom will be under 
constant surveillance by 500 cameras. It is also home to the United Nations’ 
Global Institute for Green Growth. Songdo is called the “City of the Future”, 
“The World’s Smartest City” and “Korea’s High-Tech Utopia.” After 15 
years of constant development however, Songdo only has a population of 
70,000 to enjoy its ubiquitous Internet and built-in video wall 


communication centers. 


Critics have less than glowing assessments for Songdo. The International 
New Town Institute based in The Netherlands states, 


These cities (Songdo) look like the CIAM-inspired modernist cities 
from the 1960s—as if we’ve learned nothing over the last half-century 
of urban planning innovation. This typology was, indeed, once seen as 
a panacea for cities everywhere, but is now considered a failed model 
that has cost some communities a heavy price. Many sociologists and 
historians now blame this model for rising crime rates, social 
exclusion, limited access to public amenities and heightened class 
divisions. 


CIAM refers to the Congrés Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne 
(International Congresses of Modern Architecture) that operated between 
1928 and 1959, and where famous architects of the day posed as urban 
planners. CIAM projects failed miserably and its entire urban design 
philosophy was largely discredited. Leading intellectuals of the day heavily 
promoted CIAM as a new approach to planning human settlements: Barbara 
Ward, Margaret Mead, Buckminster Fuller and Amold Toynbee. 


The New Town Institute finally concluded that “the planned towns and 
cities we now see coming up across Asia and Africa are almost exclusively 
for the wealthy.” 


In 2017, Bill Gates committed $80 million to create a smart city called 
Belmont in the Arizona desert west of Phoenix. Forty square miles of sand 
and desert flora will be transformed into a high-tech metropolis of 160,000 
inhabitants. According to a press release, Belmont will be 


A forward-thinking community with a communication and 
infrastructure spine that embraces cutting-edge technology, designed 
around high-speed digital networks, data centers, new manufacturing 
technologies and distribution models, autonomous vehicles and 


autonomous logistics hubs. 


The official term coined by Technocrats to refer to Smart Cities is 
urbanates, and this is where history meets the future. The few original 
Technocrats remaining from the last century who were associated with 
Technocracy, Inc., have argued with this writer that their pure form of 
Technocracy has nothing to do with the modern implementation of 
Technocracy via globalization, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda or Sustainable 
Development. Their protest is nonsense. While there is little doubt that these 
early Technocrats have any modern direct ties to tech giants like IBM or 
NVIDIA, their own literature gives a succinct definition of urbanates: 


Urbanates are Technocracy's solution to most of the problems found 
in the major cities of today. Briefly, urbanates would have the 
following properties: 


e Small size (perhaps 20,000-100,000 people) 

e Planned, top-down design 

e Pre-installed, integrated transportation, utilities, and 
communications 

e Safe, pollution free environment 


No more traffic jams, smog, long travel times, and lack of parking 
spaces, which are just some of the benefits of urbanates. Their overall 
design philosophy is scientific, and their final design will provide the 
citizens living in them with these advantages in accord with the goals 
of Technocratic living. By being planned from the start, Urbanates do 
not constantly expand in a random fashion that necessitates the use of 
inefficient forms of transportation, such as the automobile. Urbanates 
would instead employ a functional and convenient form of mass- 
transit that may resemble a cross between a subway system and 
elevators. Combined with its small size making most destinations 
within walking distance, transportation in an Urbanate would be 
quick and worry free. They would also contain all of the distribution, 
health care, education, and recreation centers that would be needed 


and desired by the population of these cities of the future.“4 


An insightful book, Against The Smart City by Adam Greenfield, 
analyzes the modern Smart City and concludes, 


The notion of the smart city in its full contemporary form appears to 
have originated within these businesses, rather than with any party, 
group or individual, recognized for their contributions to the theory or 
practice of urban planning. That is, the enterprises enumerated here 
are to a surprisingly great degree responsible for producing both the 
technical systems on which the smart city is founded and the rhetoric 


that binds them together as a conceptual whole. 


A respected urban planning expert, Greenfield further explains that the 
ideas at the core of today’s Smart City practice originated during the eighty 
years between 1880 and 1960 when the so-called “high-modernism” in 
urban planning was incubated, hatched and ultimately failed: 


The descriptions of the serene and masterful guidance of the city-as- 
machine-for-living we hear about from Siemens or Cisco or IBM are 
strikingly reminiscent of LeCorbusier (CIAM). What we see in the 
smart-city material across the board is a straight and occasionally 


even naive rendition of tropes that were taken to pieces fifty years 
ago”? 


The point of this discussion is to clearly show that the modern Smart City 
theory and practice is not revolutionary thinking as is claimed by 
proponents, but rather is hijacked from failed theory and practice from the 
last century. Today’s Smart Cities will not and indeed, cannot, deliver on 
their promise of urban Utopia. 


Nevertheless, given the power and intent within the big-tech companies, 
we marvel at how successful their propaganda has been to sell Smart Cities 
as the cities of the future, boldly going where no society has gone before. If 
history is a guide, this will not end well for people living in these cities. 


Who is paying for all this new or retrofitted construction of Smart Cities? 
Certainly not the cities themselves! In the United States, cities are already 
swamped with debt, unfunded liabilities, and deferred maintenance projects 
on roads, bridges, sewer, water, etc. The Hoover Institution estimates that 
unfunded urban pension liabilities alone amount to $3.846 trillion“! This 
compares to total municipal bond debt of $3.7 trillion that certainly must 
be serviced as a top priority. Both of these figures are unquestionably much 
larger as of 2018. The combined city infrastructure deficit (deferred 
maintenance) is estimated between $1.2 and $3.5 trillion, but this is very 
subjective because no one really knows how many projects could be 
launched if funds were actually available. U.S. household debt accumulated 
by citizens who inhabit these same American cities has risen to over $13 
trillion.’ A quick calculation of all this city and personal debt indicates that 
every man, woman and child wakes up each morning with over $60,000 in 
liability - and this does not include any county, state or federal debts! 


Essentially, cities are completely unable to launch new infrastructure 
projects being sold by Smart City hucksters. So, if funding cannot come 
from the cities themselves, where is it coming from? Capital investments. 


Public-Private Partnerships 


Shortly after the United Nations passed Resolution 3201, Declaration on 
the Establishment of a New International Eco-nomic Order in 1974, public- 
private partnerships (PPP) were introduced as a way to finance the 
development of the new order. It would involve private corporations putting 
up cash in return for government favors with the result being a sort of 
Fascist bonding of industry and government. The government favors could 
be in the form of free tracts of land, tax breaks, special zoning 
considerations, waivers of regulations, exclusive rights to development, etc. 
The net result of any public-private partnership is loss of city autonomy and 


sovereignty and loss of citizens’ rights to determine their own future. 
Even the United Nations exposed this criticism in one of its own papers: 


Whitfield (2010) provided a survey of PPPs around the world, 
showing how the model has been adapted to the economic, political 
and legal environments of different countries in Europe, North 
America, Australia, Russia, China, India and Brazil. It also examined 
the growing secondary market in PPP investments, “buying and 
selling schools and hospitals like commodities in a_ global 
supermarket” (p. 183) as well as the increasing number of PPP 
failures, usually as a result of investors’ “miscalculations; states pick 
up the tab when they walk away”. It found cases of deceptive 
techniques of assessing value for money (V{M) and manipulations of 
risk transfer so that PPPs appear to out-perform traditional public 
provision. Most importantly, Whitfield claimed that PPPs undermine 
democracy by systematically reducing the responsibility, capability, 


and power of the state.“2 [emphasis added] 


Nevertheless, the document builds a solid case in favor of PPP and in its 
conclusion, points to the international guidelines for PPPs contained in the 
UN’s Financing For Development outcome called the Addis Ababa Action 
Agenda: 


We will therefore build capacity to enter into public-private 
partnerships, including with regard to planning, contract negotiation, 
management, accounting and budgeting for contingent liabilities. We 
also commit to holding inclusive, open and transparent discussion 
when developing and adopting guidelines and documentation for the 
use of public-private partnerships, and to build a knowledge base and 
share lessons learned through regional and global forums. 


The full-court press to implement PPPs throughout America is gaining 
steam. In 2015, the Department of Transportation unveiled the Build 
America Transportation Investment Center (BATIC) with the main purpose 
to cultivate PPPs, helping them to gain access to federal credit and to 
navigate federal permitting and procedural requirements. Later in 2015, 
Congress passed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) 
that facilitates PPP engagement. Carrying into the current Administration, 
Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao stated during her confirmation 
hearing, “The government does not have the resources to address all the 
infrastructure needs within our country.” She noted that there is a 
“significant difference between traditional program funding and other 
innovative financing tools, such as public-private partnerships.” 


In conclusion, when a city commits to converting to a Smart City and 


PPP deals flow in to finance it, there are only two possible outcomes. 
First, if a project demonstrably fails, the private investor will leave the 
deal and the city will suffer through the resulting wreckage and 
hubris. The other outcome is that the private entity will end up 
controlling the city like a puppet on a string. In the meantime, the city 
will be ‘transformed’ with failed urban planning techniques from the 
1950s and 1960s. As you can see, there is no way for a city to exit in 
better shape than when it entered. 


Smart Regions 


To globalist Smart City planners, multiple cities bordering each other are 
seen as a city-region. These metro-areas are often referred to as such: 
Phoenix metro, the Bay Area, Los Angeles area, and so on. These regions 
present a huge problem to Technocrat planners because each city has its own 
degree of sovereignty as well as an independent city council. Some cities are 
fiercely independent and simply won’t go along with what neighboring 
cities want to do. In the age of complex technology, Smart City solutions 
demand uniformity and standardized connectivity., and trying to get many 
cities together on any single issue is like herding feral cats. What’s a planner 
to do? 


The answer is to create Smart Regions as a higher layer of governance 
and simply usurp sovereignty from all cities within the region. This brand 
new paradigm is already spreading like wildfire. 


On October 25, 2018, the Second Annual Smart Regions Conference was 
held in Columbus, Ohio. It was heavily sponsored by companies like Cisco, 
Intel, Hitachi, Oracle, IEEE, Verizon, American Automobile Association 
(AAA) and others. The Department of Homeland Security was listed as a 
government sponsor. Many NGOs and universities were also noted, like the 
Ohio State University, National Association of Development Organizations 
(NADO), Venture Smarter and Global Cities Team Challenge. 


The conference organizer, Smart Regions Initiative, clearly explains their 
activities and intentions: 


We believe that communities of all sizes deserve the tools to 
successfully navigate digital transformation and growth. SRI is 
dedicated to helping leaders build better places to live, work, and visit 
by leveraging smart technologies, policies, and strategies to optimize 
or altogether replace outdated systems and infrastructure, making 
government agencies more efficient and effective. 


Smart Regions Initiatives educate and engage key stakeholders and 
community members to accelerate the development of smart cities 
and regions in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Our team and 


partners support standards development to promote interoperability, 
policy development to support smart planning, and_ project 


development to accelerate success timelines.+2 [emphasis added] 


Note in the first instance the goal of “making government agencies more 
efficient and effective.” In the second instance, the means of accomplishing 
this is to accelerate development of “regions in urban, suburban and rural 
areas.” 


One early adopter of this new regional governance paradigm is seen in 
the Greater Phoenix Smart Region Initiative, defined as a public-private 
nonprofit partnership including Arizona State University Center for Smart 
Cities and Regions, the Arizona Institute for Digital Progress (IDP) and the 
Greater Phoenix Economic Council. The target is focused on Maricopa 
County where 22 cities and towns and 4.2 million citizens. 


ASU, located in Tempe, Arizona, claims to be the number one university 
in America for Sustainable Development. IDP was specifically set up to be 
the implementation partner for Initiative. ASU and IDP are charged to create 
the “smart cities digital road map” containing “a set of regionwide key 
priorities” that are yet to be created. Where has IDP received its inspiration? 
Primarily. it has... 


looked to other similar public-private partnerships to grow smart city 
projects, like the Dallas Innovation Alliance in Texas, the Internet of 
Things (IoT) Consortium at the University of Southern California and 


the numerous Smart Kansas City initiatives in Missouri.2 


Note that the Greater Phoenix Smart Region Initiative has no elected 
representatives and no citizen oversight. Cities are only included as 
stakeholders, and they will be lucky if they get to send one delegate to the 
meetings. Who gave any of these people the authority to usurp sovereignty 
and authority from these cities? No one! When decisions are made for 
implementing the Smart City solution for the entire region, will individual 
cities sponsor a referendum for citizens to vote on participation? Or will 
individual city councils approve the measures by specific vote? Not likely! 


Unfortunately, all of these 22 cities are already conditioned to bow to 
regional governance by the existence of the Maricopa Association of 
Governments (MAG), which is a Councils of Governments (COGS) entity 
spanning the same area and population. All of these regional governance 
schemes are patently unconstitutional and very possibly illegal. 


Such is the Smart City steamroller. 


113 The Guardian, Steven Poole, The truth about smart cities, 12/17/14 


114 The Technocrat magazine, 1938 
115https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/company/ fairs-events/scewc.html 
116 IBM Brings All The Pieces of the Smart City Puzzle Together, IBM, 13 Aug. 2013. 


117 Metropolis is an advanced Artificial Intelligence system developed by NVIDIA to perform Smart City 
functions. 


118 Alibaba, Huawei Adopt NVIDIA’s Metropolis AI Smart Cities Platform, Saurabh Jain, 25 Sept. 2017. 





119 “Global Smart Cities Market”, Mordor Intelligence, March 2018. 

120 Ibid. 

121 Venture Beat, Nvidia’s plan to turn data from 500 million cameras into AI gold, Oct. 17, 2017. 

122 International New Town Institute, When Smart Cities are Stupid, Rachael Keeton, 2012. 

123 CBS Moneywatch, Bill Gates spends $80 million to create a "smart city" in Arizona, Nov. 13, 2017. 
124 Urbanates, Technocracy.ca website 

125 Adam Greenfield, Against the Smart City, Do Projects, 2013, p.161 (Kindle). 

126 Ibid., p. 1263 (Kindle). 

127 Joshua Rauh, Hidden Debt, Hidden Deficits: 2017 Edition, Hoover Institution, May 2017, p. 1. 

128 Report on the Municipal Securities Market, Securities and Exchange Commission, July 31, 2012, p 1. 
129 Forbes, “U.S. Household Debt Reaches Record $13 Trillion”, Friedman, Nov. 14, 2017. 


130 DESA Working Paper No. 148, “Public-Private Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development: Fit for purpose?”, Sharma, Platz et. al., Feb. 2006, p. 3. 


131 Washington Post, “Elaine Chao emphasizes private funds for Trump’s promised transportation fixes”, January 
1, 2017. 


132 See SmartRegions.org page “About Smart Cities Initiatives”. 





133 Government Technology, “Phoenix Partnership Promises to Further Regional Smart Cities Work”, October 2, 
2018. 


6 BuILDING NETWORKS OF CITIES 


Networks of cities provide a powerful tool for economic policies 
of territorial basis proposing new strategies regarding to the 


objectives of equity, sustainability and competitiveness.” 


S ince most economic activity takes place within cities, it is not 
surprising that the modern globalization process focuses on urban 
transformation and control. It follows then that trade between cities depends 
upon infrastructure and connectivity. This infrastructure must provide two 
distinct functions in order to be useful to the globalist machine: first, it must 
be able to service the supply-chain that moves raw materials and value- 
added components to manufacturing and assembly factories; second, it must 
be able to deliver finished goods and services to consumers. In today’s 
economy, the inputs for manufacturing and the consumers for finished 
goods might be found in any part of the world. This is a different scenario to 
one hundred years earlier where manufacturing plants were generally 
located in close proximity to the raw materials needed for their production. 


The rapidly advancing field of Supply Chain Management (SCM) has 
done more to advance the cause of globalization than any other factor in the 
last 50 years. Advances in computers, communication and transportation 
have been carefully orchestrated to create a finely-tuned and sophisticated 
network resembling the circulatory and nervous systems in the human body. 
Politically speaking, the concept of “infrastructure” is closely associated to 
SCM. Governments never speak to citizens in terms of improving SCM, but 
rather in terms of building or rebuilding infrastructure, and this is especially 
true in America today. The citizenry is led to believe spending tax dollars on 
infrastructure means fixing the potholes on the Interstate, repairing bridges 
and overpasses, installing fiber optic Internet cables to their neighborhood, 
etc. The professionals of globalization see infrastructure in a completely 
different light: it connects cities together in functional relationships to fit 
into and service the global supply chain. 


Since her January 2017 appointment as Secretary of Transportation, 
Elaine Chao has consistently championed the Trump Administration’s $1 
trillion infrastructure rebuilding initiative but has provided a twist: the 
federal spending shortfall will be made up by the creation of public-private 
partnerships (P3), commingling private funds with public tax dollars. If the 
Administration puts up $200 billion to kickstart a $1 trillion infrastructure 
project, is it even conceivable that the private investors who put up $800 
billion will not seek their own requirements instead of the public interest? 
Not likely. 


If P3 were the only issue brought to the infrastructure table by Elaine 
Chao, it would be troubling enough, but there is a much deeper concern. 
Chao’s father, Dr. James Chao, founded a privately-held global shipping 
company called Foremost Maritime Corporation in 1964 that now owns at 
least 27 giant cargo ships. The majority of these are large bulk carriers 
known as “capesize” vessels dedicated to dry-weight cargo such as coal, 
iron ore or other commodity raw materials. 


In 1958, the elder Chao immigrated from Taiwan to the United States and 
in 1961 brought his wife and young children, including their firstborn, eight 
year-old Elaine. While building Foremost over the years, the Chao family 
has developed and maintained strong ties to the Chinese government. Its 
most recent ship purchases in 2017, for instance, were made from the state- 
owned China State Shipping Corporation (CSSC). Elaine’s sister Angela 
Chao, currently Deputy-Chairman of Foremost and in charge of day-to-day 
operations, was appointed in January 2017 to the board of directors of the 
state-owned Bank of China. The Bank of China is the fourth largest bank in 
the world, easily eclipsing JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells 
Fargo & Co. It has branches throughout the world and is a major presence in 
the United States with Bank of China USA. 


Bank of China is fully involved with China’s massive infrastructure 
project called “One Belt One Road” (BRI) which seeks to connect Asia with 
Europe along the lines of the ancient Silk Road and will include roads, 
pipelines, seaports and ocean shipping routes. The estimated cost of BRI is 
well into the trillions,’ and not surprisingly, Beijing is expecting to couple 


private investments through the liberal use of Public-Private Partnerships. 


With Elaine Chao’s sister and father so deeply and directly involved with 
the Chinese government and its own infrastructure projects, Secretary Chao 
has a major conflict of interest: will she build America’s infrastructure to 
serve the American citizen, or will she build it according to the desires of 
the global Technocracy? 


That’s a bold statement, so I will digress to explain further. China is not 
only a Technocracy, but it is currently the global leader in exporting 
Technocracy to all parts of the world. Although it still has the trappings of a 
Communist dictatorship, it has long since departed from Communism in 
favor of Technocracy. Few people recognize this because of a general 
ignorance about Technocracy. However, a 2001 article in Time Magazine, 
“Made in China: Revenge of the Nerds,” clearly makes the case: 


The nerds are running the show in today’s China. In the twenty years 
since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms kicked in, the composition of the 
Chinese leadership has shifted markedly in favor of technocrats. ...It’s 


no exaggeration to describe the current regime as a technocracy. 


After the Maoist madness abated and Deng Xiaoping inaugurated the 
opening and reforms that began in late 1978, scientific and technical 
intellectuals were among the first to be rehabilitated. Realizing that 
they were the key to the Four Modernizations embraced by the 
reformers, concerted efforts were made to bring the “experts” back 
into the fold. 


During the 1980s, technocracy as a concept was much talked about, 
especially in the context of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” — the 
principle at the heart of the “Asian Developmental Model” that South 
Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan had pursued with apparent success. 
The basic beliefs and assumptions of the technocrats were laid out 
quite plainly: Social and economic problems were akin to 
engineering problems and could be understood, addressed, and 
eventually solved as such.“4{emphasis added] 


How did China arrive at this position? China was originally brought onto 
the global economic stage by prominent members of the Trilateral 
Commission during the Carter presidency from 1976-1980. With an assist 
from Trilateral Henry Kissinger, it was primarily Trilateral Zbigniew 
Brzezinski who received the bulk of credit; but, we must remember that both 
Jimmy Carter and his Vice-President Walter Mondale, were also 
Commission members, as was Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. After 
China’s introduction to the West, it was smothered with Western capital, 
infrastructure projects, factories and most importantly, knowhow and 
instruction on Technocracy. Deng Xiaoping’s reforms discussed above were 
the result of those original Trilateral discussions. It took only 23 years for 
the Time Magazine article to articulate the result. 


Today, China is a fully-engineered and technocrat-run society that 
continues to expand its infrastructure in order to achieve economic and trade 
domination. This is what One Belt One Road is all about: perfecting the 
supply chain of goods and services between China and Europe. To sell the 
effort, China has become the top supporter of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development. When Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the 
Belt and Road Forum in May 2017 he stated, 


We should pursue the new vision of green development and a way of 
life and work that is green, low-carbon, circular and sustainable. 
Efforts should be made to strengthen cooperation in ecological and 
environmental protection and build a sound ecosystem so as to realise 
the goals set by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development... We 
will set up a big data service platform on ecological and 


environmental protection. We propose the establishment of an 
international coalition for green development on the Belt and Road, 
and we will provide support to related countries in adapting to climate 


change. 


Connecting the dots on the above, we find that, 


e Elaine Chao is Secretary of Transportation in charge of 
developing U.S. infrastructure 

e Her father is heavily involved in global infrastructure as 
head of a major shipping company, Foremost Group, and 
has close ties with the Chinese government and its top 
leadership, all of whom are steeped in Technocracy 

e Her younger sister Angela is a director of the state-owned 
Bank of China, the fourth largest bank in the world and 
senior financier to China’s One Belt One Road 
infrastructure initiative. 


There is also one other small problem: Elaine Chao is married to Senate 
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell which means she has a direct conduit 
into the legislative apparatus of Congress. 


Besides her connections to China, Secretary Chou has other P3 allies to 
finance infrastructure projects. The World Bank has widely promoted P3s to 
the world, in spite of many calling it a failed model: 


This week, executive directors of the World Bank were handed a letter 
signed by more than 80 civil society organizations and trade unions 
from around the world, urging a change in the bank’s approach to 
public-private partnerships. 


This action, during the IMF and World Bank Group Spring Meetings, 
should not have come as a surprise. It is part of a global campaign on 
PPPs launched last October with the support of more than 150 
organizations that are exasperated by the lack of action on this critical 
issue. The campaign manifesto outlines CSOs’ alarm at the increasing 
promotion of PPPs to deliver infrastructure projects and public 
services around the world, and in particular the World Bank’s role 
in energetically promoting these contracts.“* [emphasis added] 


It is important for the reader to understand how the World Bank has been 
one of the chief promoters of globalization over the past 40 years. Working 
with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International 
Settlements (BIS), the World Bank has brokered thousands of deals between 
private firms and government entities, many of which have ended in utter 


disaster. However, their failures have never deterred them from continuing 
the practice. 


As far as America’s future infrastructure is concerned, Elaine Chou is 
siding with globalization in general and the World Bank in particular. One 
must ask the question, how can this possibly turn out to serve the interests of 
the American people instead of those promoting globalization? Of course, it 
can’t. Supply chain considerations will always be first in such an 
arrangement, and when a deal goes sour with the private party exiting the 
partnership, the civic entity will be left high-and-dry with the hubris. 


It is also important for the reader to understand that Public-Private 
Partnerships are considered essential by the United Nations to implement its 
seventeen Sustainable Development Goals that are part of the 2030 Agenda 
adopted by the UN on September 25, 2015. The connection between P3s and 
SDGs has been stated and restated by many UN agencies, but it has also 
been parotted in American media as well: 


Public Private Partnerships, (PPPs), which are a controversial source 
of funding for government projects, are back at the current World 
Bank IMF meetings in Washington, under a new name — Blended 
Finance. Proponents say that blended finance is a way to fund the 
$2.5 trillion a year needed to “support progress towards the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth by the United 
Nations.” [emphasis added] 


Devolution of Nation-States 


The most powerful political impulse propelling us toward a connected 
world is precisely the one that points in the opposite direction: devolution. 
Devolution is the perpetual fragmentation of territory into ever more (and 
smaller) units of authority, from empires to nations, nations to provinces, 
and provinces to cities. Devolution is the ultimate expression of the tribal, 
local, and parochial desire to control one’s geography which is exactly why 


it drives us toward a connected destiny. 


Global technocrat and scholar Dr. Parag Khanna is revered by the global 
elite as an open advocate for Technocracy. If they listen to him, which they 
do, then we should listen to him as well. One of Khanna’s favorite topics of 
discussion is devolution. “The 21st century’s strongest political force is not 
democracy but devolution,”’ he wrote in a 2014 article titled Dismantling 
Empires Through Devolution.“2 He went on to write, 


Devolution—meaning the decentralization of power—is the 
geopolitical equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics: 
inexorable, universal entropy. Today’s nationalism and _ tribalism 


across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East represent the continued 
push for either greater autonomy within states or total independence 
from what some view as legacy colonial structures. Whether these 
movements are for devolution, federalism, or secession, they all to 


varying degrees advocate the same thing: greater self-rule 2 


There are often counter intuitive twists and turns in understanding 
Technocracy, and devolution is one of them. Promoting “greater self-rule” 
in local areas accomplishes two key goals for Technocracy. First, 
autonomous cities are more easily enticed into connecting to the global 
supply chain. Second, large democratic structures that would resist 
Technocracy, whether overtly or by bureaucratic red-tape, are more easily 
restructured to provide the system under which the general society can be re- 
engineered. In other words, the little problems and details of local 
governance don’t matter to Technocrats as long as they are in charge of 
creating the master system under which they all operate. 


This is exactly what has happened in China over the last 40 years, leading 
many technocrat-minded leaders in the free-world to praise the “China 
model” of governance over the American model. Parag Khanna minced no 
words when he stated, “China, the most populous empire in history, is trying 
to reorganize itself into a collection of two dozen urban technocratic hubs. 
America should do the same.” 


The Chinese government provides hard and fast rules and policies (the 
engineering) that all citizens must follow, but how they choose to follow in 
their local communities is up to the local citizens. The tools of Technocracy 
are devised and provided from the top level, but their use is carried out by 
local communities. Khanna points to this with statements like, 


American democracy could be made far more effective through the 
technocratic toolkit being deployed around the world in better-run 
countries. There are three things that the best governments do well: 
Respond efficiently to citizens’ needs and preferences, learn from 
international experience in devising policies, and use data and 
scenarios for long-term planning. If done right, such governments 
marry the virtues of democratic inclusiveness with the effectiveness of 
technocratic management. The ideal type of government that results 
is what I call a direct technocracy. *¥ [emphasis added] 


What kind of things are in this technocratic toolkit? In China’s case, it is 
easy to pick out key components: 


e National funding for high-tech projects like 5G, Internet of 
Things (IoT), Smart Grid infrastructure, high speed trains, 


advanced surveillance cameras and sensors, etc. 
Physical infrastructure to connect cities and regions 
Architecture for Smart City construction 

Trade infrastructure such as One Belt, One Road 
Artificial Intelligence, supercomputer capacity 

The legal framework for Public-Private Partnerships 


Foreign policy and trade agreements 


Trying to merge “technocratic management” with “democratic 
inclusiveness” is an oxymoron on one hand, but it shows how Technocracy 
intends to handle citizen representation. Communities can vote on how the 
trash should be collected or which side of the road the bicycle lane is on, but 
all other decisions are left up to the technocrats. 


Devolution in America got underway in 1993 with the inauguration of 
President William Jefferson Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, both 
former members of the elite Trilateral Commission. Clinton signed 
Executive Order 12862 on September 11, 1993 that formalized the National 
Performance Review (NPR) headed by Gore. NPR was later renamed the 
National Partnership for Reinventing Government. NPR was inspired by a 
book published in early 1993, Reinventing Government by David Osborne 
and Ted Gaebler. A book review published just three months later provided 
insight into where this was headed: 


In Reinventing Government, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler attempt 
to chart a course between big government and laissez faire. They want 
nothing to do with “ideology.” Rather Osborne and Gaebler are 
technocrats in search of pragmatic answers. “Reinventing 
Government,” they write, “addresses how governments work, not 
what governments do.” Thus, from the standpoint of what 
governments do, the book is a proverbial grab bag of policy 
prescriptions, some good, some bad“ [Emphasis added] 


In fact, Vice President Al Gore chose Osborne to be his senior advisor in 
running the NPR. 


In 1999, Clinton’s program was so impressive that it was recognized by 
the United Nations as a global program under the auspices of the U.N. 
Public Administration Programme (UNPAP) which stated: 


The Global Forum was first organized by the Government of the 
United States in 1999. Since then, it has emerged as one of the most 
significant global events to address government reinvention. 
Subsequent forums have been organized by the Governments of Brazil, 
Italy, Morocco, Mexico and the Republic of Korea, respectively. 


During the 6th Global Forum held in Seoul in May 2005, the United 
Nations Under-Secretary General invited participants to the 7th 
Global Forum to be held at the UN Headquarters # 


Essentially, the goal of reinventing government was to convert from a 
bureaucratic to a business model of governance. This shifted the mission of 
government to treat citizens like customers while answering to corporate 
stakeholders instead.“ Running government like a corporation permits the 
natural devolution of authority to spread to states, regions and most 
importantly, cities. In place of centralized authority, regulations replaced 
unified law and all of the resulting entities were “empowered” to do 
whatever it took to get the corporate mission accomplished. 


This is not easily seen or understood without an example. The most 
egregious illustration is the nationwide blanket of regional Councils of 
Governments that has been thoroughly co-opted by the “reinvented 
government.” The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) 
oversees state Councils which in turn oversee local Councils. NARC 
provides its own history: 


The National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), then called 
the National Service to Regional Councils (NSRC), was created in 
1965 by the National League of Cities and the National Association of 
Counties to respond to the professional and legislative needs of 
America’s emerging, multi-purpose, multi-jurisdictional organizations 
of local governments. By 1967, the more than 350 Regional Councils 
in the country were at the forefront of forging regional alliances for 
the purpose of addressing common, multi-jurisdictional challenges. 
These organizations are known as regional planning agencies, 
development districts and councils of governments, among other 
names. It was in 1967 that NARC became an independent entity for 
regions. 


Today, Regional Councils have retained their identity but their role 
has changed dramatically. Of the more than 500 Regional Councils 
throughout the country, some include Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPO). More than 400 MPOs have been established 
to serve as urban regional transportation entities in areas with a 
population of 50,000 or more. Some MPOs are extensions of 
Regional Councils, and slightly more than half are stand-alone 
organizations responsible for fulfilling federal and _ state 
metropolitan transportation planning requirements. A board of 
elected officials and other community leaders typically governs each 
Regional Council and MPO. 


NARC supports its membership by advocating and representing their 
interests on national issues, with the U.S. Congress and the Executive 
Branch. The function of the Regional Council and the MPO has been 
shaped by changing dynamics in federal, state and local government 
relations, and the recognition that the region is the arena in which 
local governments must work together to address challenges — social, 
economic, workforce, transportation, emergency preparedness, 
environmental and others. Additionally, Regional Councils and 
MPOs are often called upon to deliver various federal, state programs 
that require a regional approach, such as, transportation or 
comprehensive planning, services for the elderly and clearinghouse 
functions. 


Regional Councils and MPOs have learned to be entrepreneurial 
due to shifts in priorities for federal funds. These organizations are 
experienced collaborators, adept at bringing people together and 
getting results. States are relying more on these organizations as 
vehicles for engaging local governments and delivery of programs.“ 


[emphasis added] 


The 400 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) administer 
transportation regulations and Federal/state funding to the local cities (think 
infrastructure, connectivity). This funding used to go directly to the cities, 
but now it has been intercepted by the MPOs in order to enforce and 
advance their own “sustainable” agenda. They are not run by locally elected 
civic representatives, and no individual city or county would dare to resist 
for fear of losing Federal infrastructure funding. 


Note that Councils of Governments also assert authority over regional 
planning, land use, zoning and property rights policies in their respective 
“regions”, while usurping or overriding duly elected city and county 
representatives. 


Some might say that coordination and cooperation is a good thing, and 
others might even agree. The real problem with Councils of Governments is 
that they are patently and outrageously unConstitutional from top to bottom! 
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall 
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of 
Government....” What is a Republic form of Government? It is defined as 
“a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled 
to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives 
governing according to law.” 


Thus, the reinvented Federal government has devolved by distributing 
jurisdiction to regional Councils of Government, rather than to citizens 


directly. 


It is noteworthy that COGs and MPOs are not government organizations 
at all. They have no direct taxation power, no regulatory authority and no 
police powers. They never hold elections for any position and membership 
is said to be voluntary. If they have no “teeth”, then how can they wield so 
much influence over an entire region? The answer is money. 


Here is an odd mix of public-private partnership where the COG/MPO 
partners with the Federal Department of Transportation to act as a 
middleman for Federal funds. For instance, President Obama signed the 
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) act on December 4, 2015. 
FAST authorized $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for 
highway construction, public transportation and railroad improvements, 
among other related things. 


According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the FAST Act 
authorizes each state to receive a lump sum of money representing the sum 
of its projects, except the state does not actually receive the money. The 
FHA rules specifically state, “funding is set aside for the State’s 
Metropolitan Planning program...” The MPO/COG is then free to dangle 
the funds over their cities and counties to force them to comply with their 
UN-driven Sustainable Development and 2030 Agenda programs. 


Conclusion 


America’s infrastructure is being built out by Technocrats according to a 
narrow focus on furthering Sustainable Development via infrastructure and 
Supply Chain Management. If there are benefits for American citizens, they 
will be incidental to the greater cause. Government actors are wrought with 
conflicts of interest, and their means of delivery (COGs, MPOs) are 
unConstitutional. 


The overall purpose of connecting the world’s cities into a global 
network is to further implement the UN’s Sustainable Development policies, 
the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 2030 Agenda. This was made 
abundantly clear in Khanna’s book Connectography: 


The World Bank argues that infrastructure is the “missing link” in 
achieving the Millennium Development Goals related to poverty, 
health, education, and other objectives, and infrastructure has been 
formally included in the latest Sustainable Development Goals ratified 
in 2015. [emphasis added] 


132 RafaelBoix, Networks of Cities and Growth, Universita di Firenze, 2013, p. 34. 


133 CNBC, “China’s plan to develop Asian infrastructure could cost trillions”, Evelyn Cheng, 23 June 2017. 


134 Time Magazine, “Made in China: Revenge of the Nerds”, Kaiser Kuo, June 2001. 


135 Scroll.in, “As China eyes global clout with Belt and Road Initiative, what price will the environment pay?”, 
Giovanni Ortolani, May 30, 2018. 


136 Maria Romero, “Public-private partnerships don’t work”, Devex, 19 April 2018. 


137 Forbes, “'Blended Finance' -- Lipstick On The Public-Private Partnership Pig?”, Tom Groenfeldt, April 20, 
2018. 


138 Khanna, Parag, Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization (Kindle Locations 1375-1378). 
Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 


139 The Atlantic, “Dismantling Empires Through Devolution”, Parag Khanna, Sept. 26, 2014. 
140 Ibid. 

141 Technocracy in America, Parag Khanna, Createspace, 2017, p. 52. 

142 Ibid., p. 4-5. 

143 Freeman, “Reinventing Government”, Franklin Harris, Jr., May 1, 1993. 

144 UN Public Administration Programme, The Global Forum on Reinventing Government. 


145 Wood, Patrick, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, Coherent Publishing, 2017, 
p. 105. 


146 Narc.org/about-narc/about-the-association/history 


147 Khanna, Parag. Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization (Kindle Locations 528-530). 
Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 





7 GLOBALIST TOOLS OF DEVOLUTION 


Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of 
your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. 
These are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and 
cowardice. - John Adams (1765) 


T he global elite have always been less tight-lipped about their 
globalist strategies than their tools designed to achieve them. After 
all, if someone threatened to murder you, there wouldn’t be too much you 
could do unless you knew how they were going to do it. Knowing how 
would let you build a defense against your attacker. This principle is not lost 
on the agents of transformation. 


This chapter will examine three of the more prominent tools of 
devolution that are being used to flip America into Technocracy. These tools 
are thoroughly described by academia and policy makers but are largely 
unknown to the public. This fact has made it virtually impossible for 
activists and critics to gain any momentum in resisting the implementation 
of things like Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda, New 
Urban Agenda and Green Economy, to name a few. 


Reflexive law 


Chapter 7 of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global 
Transformation first described the theory and practice of Reflexive Law in 
America and to my knowledge, offered the first modern critical analysis. 


It is well-known that the U.S. Constitution is based on the Rule of Law. 
In fact, the front of the beautiful Supreme Court building in Washington, 
D.C. is engraved with “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”. This is a 
wonderful concept that codified well-published laws that would apply to 
every citizen in exactly the same way regardless of race, religion, sex or 
national origin.. In fact, the phrase, “nobody is above the law”, is legendary 
in America. 


The Constitution provides that laws are made only by Congress which is 
made up of broadly elected representatives of the people. The Executive 
branch enforces these laws, and the Supreme Court insures that they are not 
contrary to the Constitution. This system of checks and balances is seen 
nowhere else on planet earth. It is at the very core of what made America 
into the greatest nation in history. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. 


Perpetrators of Sustainable Development found early on that they could 
make no headway in America under the traditional Rule of Law. One 


environmental law journal writing about Reflexive Law succinctly described 
the problem: 


..sustainable development’s broad sweep strains our intellectual 
grasp of its meaning and outruns the capacity of our current legal and 
political systems to channel society’s activities toward its 
achievement... there is no doubt that sustainable development needs 
new paradigms to transform it from visionary rhetoric to a viable 
political goal. +! 


Apparently, Sustainable Development was merely “visionary rhetoric” 
until Reflexive Law came to the table. In this case, it is very clear that the 
intention of this new system would drive political and societal change 
outside of Constitutional authority or restrictions. In addition, the “capacity 
of our current legal and political systems” was inadequate to contain the 
scope and intent of Sustainable Development; this is an understatement, 
however, because if left to itself to work as originally intended, our legal 
and political system would have rejected and banished it on sight. 


Reflexive Law originated with a German legal scholar, Gunther Teubner, 
in 1982. It was described clearly in 2001: 


Reflexive describes “an action that is directed back upon itself:. For 
the purposes of Systems Theory reflexivity is defined as the application 
of a process to itself, e.g., “thinking of thinking”, “communicating 
about communication: “teaching how to teach”, etc. In the context of 
law reflexivity could be “making laws on law-making, “adjudicating 
on adjudication”, or “regulating self-regulation”. It is obvious, that 
the focus of Reflexive Law in this context is rather on procedure 


than on substantive law.” [emphasis added] 


A foundational concept of Technocracy is Systems Theory which is 
based on the idea that systems can be self-regulating by using continuous 
feedback of the system itself. Systems Theory is applied to all kinds of 
disciplines such as psychology, sociology, ecology and business. It is a core 
tenet of artificial intelligence (AI) where algorithms teach themselves new 
behavior based on new learning experiences or changing conditions. The 
law journal goes on to state: 


Another meaning of reflexive is "marked by or capable of reflection", 
referring to reflexion in its philosophical meaning of "introspective 
contemplation or consideration of some subject matter". Here one can 
find the normative implications of Reflexive Law as being connected 
with a concept of rationality. However, rationality is not understood 
as a quality of norms, but in accordance with Discourse Theory rather 
as communicative rationality. In a nutshell, decision-making in a 


reflexive legal system shall be marked by thorough deliberation or 
reasoning as well as by reflection on the specific function and limits 
of law in modern society. Teubner suggests that such reflection would 
lead to a non-interventionist model of the State and of Law the latter 
of which is essentially limits itself to what we can call the 


constitutionalisation of self-regulation.“2 [emphasis added] 


We learn here that Reflexive Law is not rational in the traditional sense, 
but only in accordance with Discourse Theory. The Frenchman Michel 
Foucault (1925-1984) was the father of Discourse Theory which states that 
what society holds to be true changes over time and is discovered by 
interaction with members of society itself. In other words, bring all your 
facts and studies to the table and then debate them until a consensus is 
reached. The push and shove of stakeholders (those with pertinent 
information related to the discussion) is ultimately dominated by the more 
powerful, persuasive or clever ones. 


Thus, Reflexive Law is an irrational legal system based on current and 
changing societal norms, using itself to determine legal outcomes. If this 
tums your mind into a pretzel, don’t be alarmed; take a deep breath and then 
read from the beginning again. 


Now, let me give you some context. The title of the above paper is “Lex 
Mercatoria”, which is Latin for Merchant Law that was prevalent in Europe 
during the medieval period. It was a system of custom and best practices that 
decided cases ex aequo et bono, or simply put, by arbitration. It dispensed 
with legal technicalities of respective nations or districts. Arbitration is not 
an uncommon practice today, but it requires the specific consent of both 
parties before negotiations begin. Arguments and discussions are factored in 
to arrive at a fair “ruling” and then the case is closed. What happens in one 
arbitration case might have a radically different outcome in another because 
it is subject to the whims of the jurists. Obviously, this is not the traditional 
American ‘“Rule of Law”, but be careful not to mistake Reflexive Law for 
Case Law or Administrative Law. It is altogether different. 


Reflexive Law is the primary reason that entire industries have clamored 
to be deregulated over the past 40 years. Such industries demanded self- 
regulation and shunned government oversight that could hold them 
accountable to existing laws and statutes. This would not be evident unless 
one understood what Reflexive Law is in the first place. 


Virtually every lawsuit brought by radical environmental groups against 
ranchers, farmers, cities, counties, landowners and even states, has been 
prosecuted according to Reflexive Law. The defendants seldom win a case 
because they apply a defense according to the Rule of Law, which is a 


completely different legal theory. In every case, the plaintiffs trot out 
scientific studies, stakeholders, expert witnesses and computer models, 
arguing that the environment has suffered irreparable damage caused by the 
defendant’s actual or predicted actions. If these same cases had been 
prosecuted according to the traditional Rule of Law, the defendants would 
have consistently prevailed. To put it another way, the environmental 
plaintiffs play chess while the defendants play checkers. As I wrote in 
Technocracy Rising, 


The problem with Reflexive Law is that it cannot operate in a vacuum, 
as is suggested, but is at all times subject to those who control it. It is 
ripe for manipulation. Reflexive Law practitioners can thus direct the 
discourse, the outcome, and the rule-making in a very real sense like 
the old West vigilante concept of the local self-appointed sheriff being 
“judge, jury and executioner.” 


Collaborative Governance 


Collaborative Governance is a defined practice that has existed since the 
late 1980s, and has spread its influence into every state in the U.S. As you 
will see, it is closely related and complementary to Reflexive Law and 
Regional Government. Furthermore, it has been a prime mover in the 
implementation of Sustainable Development. 


The most authoritative definition of Collaborative Governance is: 


A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies engage 
non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is 
formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or 


implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.4# 


There are six important criteria that must be noted in this definition: 


1. The forum must be initiated by a public agency 

2. There must be non-state actors or stakeholders 

3. Participants must be involved directly in decision-making 
4. Participants meet collectively 


5. Decision-making is done by consensus 
6. The object is to make or implement binding public policyL= 
The public agencies can be at the federal, state or local level and can be 
initiated by any type of governmental body. Stakeholders invited may 
include citizens, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as 
environmental groups, experts, other government agencies and corporations. 


Again, it is important to remember that stakeholders must be directly 
engaged in decision-making rather than just serving in a consulting capacity. 


The problem with Collaborative Governance is that it is not 
Constitutional on any level. Allowing non-governmental stakeholders to 
enter into the decision-making process for public policy completely 
circumvents the concept of representative government. Yet, the practice is 
so widespread that the University of Arizona now offers a graduate 
certificate in Collaborative Governance through its College of Social & 
Behavioral Sciences School of Government & Public Policy. Department 
literature indicates that a Masters of Public Administration (MPA) will soon 
be offered. 


The other-worldly nature of Collaborative Governance is clearly seen 
across academic literature. It is not hidden but bluntly states that it is 
specifically designed to work outside of traditional representative 
government: 


A final lesson suggested by these cases is that even when collaborative 
practice is done correctly and in an appropriate situation, changing 
traditional governance is still a daunting task. As Machiavelli 
observed centuries ago, ‘It ought to be remembered that there is 
nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or 
more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction 


of a new order of things. 


One nest of Collaborative Governance is found in the state of Oregon. On 
December 16, 2011, the governor of Oregon signed Executive Order 11-12 
that formalized Collaborative Governance in the state. It states in part, 


ESTABLISHING THE OREGON SOLUTIONS NETWORK AND 
CONNECTING THE WORK OF THE REGIONAL SOLUTIONS 
CENTERS, OREGON SOLUTIONS AND THE OREGON 
CONSENSUS PROGRAM 


Oregon has been a leader in the development of collaborative 
governance systems and models. The state has benefitted from the 
work of organizations formed to bring together the public, private and 
civic sectors to solve problems and seize opportunities in a 
collaborative way. 


In order to create a prosperous economy, healthy environment and 
equitable society, a need exists in the state to create an infrastructure 
to support communities of place and interest that want to take a 
collaborative approach to solving problems and maximizing 
opportunities at the state, regional and local level. A collaborative 


infrastructure includes resources to support collaborative decision 
making; dispute resolution; implementation; public engagement and 
interagency cooperation.“ [emphasis added] 


The Oregon Solutions Program is housed in the College of Urban and 
Public Affairs at Portland State University’, and its Mission Statement is 
crystal clear: 


The mission of Oregon Solutions is to develop sustainable solutions to 
community-based problems that support economic, environmental, 
and community objectives and are built through the collaborative 


efforts of businesses, government and non-profit organizations. “2 


Some of the current projects in progress at the time of this writing 
include: 


© Oregon Sustainability Board, Sustainable Schools Project 
© Stream Restoration Partnership 


Renewable Energy and Eastern Oregon Landscape Conservation 
Partnership 


¢ Transportation Electrification Executive Council 
¢ Southern Oregon Clean Energy Alliance 


¢ Oregon Sustainable Agriculture Resource Center 


One might imagine that some participants could become hostile toward 
decisions that are not seen as in their best interest. In such cases, Oregon 
Solutions states that “we refer projects of a highly contentious nature to 
Oregon Consensus, our sister program, and the state’s official dispute 
resolution program.’ This takes Collaboration projects to the next level of 
mediation and creates binding solutions from which there is no escape or 
appeal process. 


As an example, Collaborative Governance has been applied in Klamath 
Falls, Oregon by the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). 
KBRA, along with the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), have 
orchestrated the planned destruction of four hydroelectric dams on the 
Klamath River hoping to promote a larger salmon run. Local counties that 
called for the original KBRA Collaboration governance panel included Del 
Norte (CA), Humboldt (CA), Siskiyou (CA) and Klamath (OR), but they 
were overshadowed by the 24 other invited Stakeholders that included: 


© U.S Forest Service 


© Oregon Water Resource Board 


California Fish & Game 
¢ Bureau of Reclamation 


e@ Karuk, Klamath, Yurok Tribes 


Klamath Citizens Group 


Friends of the River 
© Trout Unlimited 


¢ Institute for Fisheries Resources 


American Rivers 


National Center for Conservation Science & Policy 


Collectively, the KBRA was able to create binding laws, rules, 
regulations and sanctions. It is also notable that several Federal agencies 
were concurrently part of the collaboration process, permitting cross-agency 
policies that would not have been possible if the agencies had acted on their 
own. Despite desperate pleas from local citizens, the managing entity for the 
dam removal, KRRC, “submitted its plan to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, as part of its application to transfer the license for the four 
dams and remove them. 22 


This entire process has lasted over 10 years and has methodically rolled 
over all opposition and objections. There has been no legislative oversight 
and no true public representation. Article 4, Section 4 of the US. 
Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in 
this Union a Republican Form of Government...” 


KBRA itself was declared legally dead only after three failed attempts to 
get funding from Congress to clean up the mess that dam removal would 
have made. Undeterred, the project was handed off to another newly created 
collaboration called Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), 
which created the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KKRC). The 
stakeholders of the KHSA are almost identical to the defunct KBRA. The 
KKRC is charged with actual removal of the 4 Klamath river dams which 
will proceed as soon as the dam licenses are transferred. 


In sum, Collaborative Governance is a scourge to the Constitutional Rule 
of Law upon which America was built, but it is a key tool for 
implementation of Sustainable Development. 


Do not think that Collaborative Governance is an American phenomenon 
because it is not. In fact, it is alive and well throughout the entire developed 
world. For instance, it is reported from an Australian academic journal that 
“Tt is clear today that governments across the developed world are preaching 
the gospel of collaboration... their objectives cannot be achieved without 


collaboration.”42 


Councils of Governments (Regionalism) 


When President William Jefferson Clinton and Vice President Al Gore 
committed themselves to reinventing government in 1993, the concept of 
regional government organizations quickly merged with the basic tenets of 
Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 and began to spread their net over 
our entire country. Historically, regional coordination councils had already 
existed for several decades, but they were mostly limited to transportation 
cooperation and coordination between neighboring cities and counties in the 
more populated urban areas. Some level of interaction between adjacent 
civic entities had always been acceptable as long as each entity, through its 
duly-elected representatives, retained power over its own choices. 


When it was determined that these regional councils could be used as an 
end run around national sovereignty to implement Sustainable Development 
and Agenda 21, the concept quickly evolved into a full-blown network of 
regional government entities that covered the nation. The National 
Association of Regional Councils (NARC) was established to coordinate 
and support regional governance; state associations of their own regional 
organizations were established in all but seven states. Today, NARC notes 
that 


Regional Councils have retained their identity but their role has 
changed dramatically. Of the more than 500 Regional Councils 
throughout the country, some include Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPO). More than 400 MPOs have been established to 
serve as urban regional transportation entities in areas with a 
population of 50,000 or more. Some MPOs are extensions of Regional 
Councils, and slightly more than half are stand-alone organizations 
responsible for fulfilling federal and state metropolitan transportation 
planning requirements. A board of elected officials and other 
community leaders typically governs each Regional Council and 
MPO. [emphasis added] 


In this context, “Regional Councils” refers to Councils of Governments 
(COGS) and they are closely related to and intertwined with Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations (MPO). It is accurate to say that all MPOs are also 
Councils of Governments because they are similarly structured and only 
address regional issues. One of the largest COGs in the nation is the 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in the Silicon Valley area of 
northern California. ABAG asserts jurisdiction over 9 counties containing 
100 cities and over 7 million people. Each of these cities has its own city 
councils. ABAG specifically states that its “planning and research 


programs are committed to addressing sustainability, resilience and equity 
in the region.” Furthermore, it states: 


ABAG builds collaborative partnerships with local governments, Bay 
Area leaders and citizens throughout the region to establish shared 
goals and create a broader framework to examine economic, social 
and environmental challenges for the region and future generations. 
Collaborative participation envisioned in these partnerships 
represents a comprehensive strategy to guide how we want to grow, 
adapt to change, preserve member communities’ unique qualities, and 
create more vibrant and successful initiatives that maximize ABAG's 
regional planning objectives and resources. [emphasis added] 


The collaborative partnerships are achieved by each city sending a single 
elected representative to be part of the ABAG council. After deliberation 
with experts, environmentalists, NGOs, lawyers and lobbyists, decisions are 
made that affect the entire region. The problem with this setup is that none 
of the city councils of the 100 cities have any say in these policies. This is 
the nature of regionalism, and it is patently unconstitutional and grossly 
unfair to the 7 million residents who are almost totally unaware of ABAG’s 
existence. 


Furthermore, ABAG’s so-called “shared goals” are mostly of its own 
creation, focused on Sustainable Development and orchestrated to affect 
“economic, social and environmental challenges.” 


ABAG reaches into many other key areas of life such as land use 
policies, housing standards and zoning, water resources, energy acquisition 
and distribution. Most importantly and shockingly, “ABAG also operates as 
the state-designated clearinghouse for federal grant applications.” 


This is huge, because COGs have no government powers like police or 
law making capacities. Once they grabbed the middleman spot for federal 
grants to the 100 cities and 9 counties, all of which used to receive such 
grants directly, ABAG inherited an extortion power that they have learned to 
use expeditiously: Do what we say or you won’t get your federal grant 
allocations. Thus, the individual cities are forced into participating in radical 
schemes that they did not vote for or approve. 


Note above that NARC states that there are over 500 COGs and 400 
MPOs covering the United States, all with essentially the same agenda to 
force Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 and other United Nations 
policies on captive cities and counties. Indeed, COGs have been a key driver 
to bringing these policies to the U.S., and all have worked carefully with 
Collaborative Governance and Reflexive Law to achieve it. It’s little wonder 
that so many communities seem to have been turned upside-down in the last 


24 years, because they have, and most still have no idea of how it was done. 


Case Study: Greater Phoenix Smart Region Initiative 


In 2018 several non-governmental organizations got together and decided 
to imprint Smart City planning and technology across the entire greater 
Phoenix region composed of 30 cities and 4.7 million citizens. It is 
described as a public-private collaborative partnership and the major 
participants are Arizona State University Center for Smart Cities and 
Regions, the Arizona Institute for Digital Progress and the Greater Phoenix 
Economic Council. The head of the latter group, Chris Camacho, stated: 


Yes, we re somewhat late to the game compared to some other places, 
but no one has done it in such a large scale with a collaborative effort 
like we’re doing. We expect to execute this plan over the next 12 
months and it will bring the most significant economic shift this 
market has seen in decades.“& [emphasis added] 


Blending P3 with Collaborative Governance (P3C) is a relatively new 
concept but is easy enough to understand. A traditional P3 is typically a 
business deal between a single civic entity and a limited number of 
commercial entities; contracts are created and signed, rules are put in place 
and the work begins. A P3 Collaborative Governance brings in as many 
“stakeholders” as are necessary to make decisions, determine strategies and 
policies, etc. The actual outcome of a P3C may not be known until late in 
the game as final decisions are made and agreements are signed. 


Smart Region theory and practice is global in scope with new 
collaborations popping up on every continent. For instance, the Smart City 
Association in Italy published a paper called “Smart Regions: Paving the 
Way for Successful Digitalization Strategies Beyond Smart Cities.” They 
are watching the Greater Phoenix Smart Region Initiative like a hawk: 


For example, in the Greater Phoenix region, the Institute of Digital 
Progress (iDP) has coordinated the collaboration of multiple 
municipalities & authorities, as well as private sector partners — 
including Uber, Intel and Cisco, further supported by the Arizona 
State University — to address mobility and traffic congestions 
collectively — winning a multi-million dollar Advanced Transportation 
And Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) 


grant in the process.“ 


It is not insignificant that one of the co-authors of this paper is Dominic 
Papa, also a co-founder of the Arizona Institute for Digital Progress. This 
foreign paper makes their intent perfectly clear and American readers should 
pay attention: 


Many cities around the world benefit from innovation and digitization 
strategies. ‘Smart Cities’ initiatives provide the catalyst for urban 
communities to become more resilient and sustainable, affording 
economic efficiencies, environmental innovations, enhanced public 
security, smarter mobility, fresh economic activity and 21st century 
Jobs... 


As we collectively enter a next chapter of digital evolution, we must 
leave no person behind. Smart region strategies help us achieve that 
goal“2 [emphasis added] 


All of these concepts are straight out of the United Nations playbook for 
Sustainable Development: resilient, sustainable, economic efficiencies, 
smarter mobility enhanced public security, 21st century jobs and “leave no 
person behind.” 


Unfortunately, all of these legal schemes are completely unknown to 
American citizens; the legal community is in the dark as well. Because 
devolution of centralized government is necessary for Technocracy and 
Sustainable Development to take root, it is imperative that Americans 
understand their methods and tools. 


151 Gaines, “Reflexive Law as a Legal Paradigm for Sustainable Development”, Buffalo Environmental Law 
Journal, (2002). 


152 Graif-Peter Calliess, “Lex Mercatoria: A Reflexive Law Guide To An Autonomous Legal System”, German 
Law Journal, (2001). 


153 ibid. 


154 “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 
Ansell & Gash, (Oxford University Press, 2007). 


155 Ibid. 
156 See https://collaborativegovernance.arizona.edu/quick-facts for more information. 


157 National Civic Review, “Collaborative Governance Practices and Democracy”, David E. Booher, February 23, 
2005, p. 32-46. 


158 See original document at the State of Oregon website. 
ttps://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/executive_orders/eo_1112.pdf. 


159 Note: Because of this, Oregon has been in a state of legal anarchy for at least 8 years, and it is no wonder that 
Portland has racked up such a bad national reputation for crazy environmental and social justice programs. 


160 See website at www.orsolutions.org. 
161 See website at http://orsolutions.org/our-process/project-criteria 
162 American Rivers, “Plan released for Klamath River Dam Removal”, Amy Kober, June 29, 2018. 


163 Collaborative Governance: A New Era of Public Policy in Australia?, O’Flynn and Wanna, The Australian 
National University, 2008, p. xi. 








164 See NARC website, History page: http://narc.org/about-narc/about-the-association/history/ 


167 AZBigMedia, “Is Arizona falling behind on the smart cities movement’, Serena Zhang, April 25, 2018. 


168 The Smart City Association, “Smart Regions: Paving the Way for Successful Digitalization Strategies beyond 
Smart Cities”, Boorsma, et al., March 24, 2018. 


169 Ibid. 


8 FINTECH: CRYPTO, CASHLESS 
AND GREEN 


Under a scientific dictatorship education will really work -- with 
the result that most men and women will grow up to love their 
servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no 
good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be 
overthrown. - Aldous Huxley 


F intech is more than just an innocuous contraction of “Financial” 
and “Technology”. When 195 nations of the world rubber-stamped 
the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda in 2016, it was widely noted that in order 
to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a new financial 
system would be necessary to reset the global economic system. This is 
made clear by a leading Fintech news journal: 


But this change [implementing SDGs] depends in part on a reset of 
the global financial system to ensure that private capital is 
redeployed to finance the transition to an inclusive, green economy. 
It requires reforming incumbent finance and democratizing such 
services to drive this global transition toward accessible green 
technologies, jobs and infrastructure. [emphasis added] 


The governor of one Central Bank stated that Fintech offers “the greatest 
hope for aligning the world’s financial systems with the urgent twin 
objectives of sustainable development and deepening financial inclusion. 4 
The UN itself is very clear that 


The financial system will need to evolve to play its role in financing 
sustainable development. Billions of people and millions of small 


businesses lack access to financial services.2 


The UN describes a “quiet revolution” taking place to merge Sustainable 
Development into the fabric of the financial system, and that it is being led 
by those governing the financial system: central banks, financial regulators, 
stock exchanges and the largest financial actors like global banks and 
financial consultancies The magnitude of scale that the UN prescribes is 
not just global, but stunning as well: 


Finance needs to access private capital at scale, with banking alone 
managing financial assets of almost US$140 trillion and institutional 
investors, notably pension funds, managing over US$100 trillion, and 
capital markets, including bond and equities, exceeding US$100 


trillion and US$73 trillion respectively [emphasis added] 


However, these only represent monetized assets. Non monetized assets 
include things like forest wealth, estimated to be as large as $270 trillion. 
While you might be tempted to think this isn’t that much money, consider 
that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the entire planet was only $75.4 
trillion in 2016. Fintech not only sets its sights on all the income of the 
world but on all of the monetized and non-monetized assets as well. 


Thus, in this short space we have already learned that Fintech 


Is completely global in scope 
Is the intended and necessary financial system of Sus- 
tainable Development 

e Wants to include all citizens of the world, leaving no 
person behind 
Is funded mostly by private corporations 
Redirects money from “brown” assets to green assets 
Uses advanced technology to transform the system from 
capitalism to Sustainable Development 


When the United Nations speaks of a “reset of the global financial 
system”, it harkens back to UN climate tzar Christiana Figueres’ statement 
in 2015: 


This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, 
which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, 


for the first time in human history.2 


Figueres was careful to note that this transformation was not an event, but 
a process “because of the depth of the transformation."12 Indeed, changing 
the entire economic system is more than just a transformation: It is a foray 
into the unknown and the unknowable because it is a full reset of the status 
quo that has never been attempted in human history. 


With this as a backdrop, it is necessary to examine the scope and depth of 
Fintech and how it is being implemented around the world. 


Cryptocurrencies 


Just about everyone has heard something about Bitcoin in the news, but 
most of it is quite uninformed. The open-source software for Bitcoin, freely 
available to the entire world for examination, was originally released in 
2009. Bitcoin is considered to be the first so-called “decentralized” 
cryptocurrency. Transactions are generally anonymous, but their details are 
recorded in a packet of data called a “blockchain” and stored in a digital 
“wallet”. Furthermore, the blockchain itself is encrypted. 


Bitcoins are “mined” digitally as computers around the world compete to 
solve complex mathematical equations that are increasingly more difficult as 
more coins are generated. Bitcoin “miners” have set up computer centers all 
over the world. Specially designed computers are custom-manufactured 
costing thousands of dollars each. As faster computer chips become 
available, many miners must replace all of their computers in order to 
compete with other newly-established miners. The amount of energy 
consumed by mining operations is staggering and growing at a geometric 
rate. One expert calculated that in 2017 global mining operations consumed 
as much energy as the entire nation of Ireland. Consumption in 2018 was 
expected to rise to one-half percent of all energy produced on earth!482 


Bitcoin is 100 percent digital. There is no physical “coin” and any printed 
representation of a coin is merely an artist’s idea of what they could look 
like. Something of a physical nature could be stolen by burglars, but 
traditional thieves are out of luck with Bitcoin. This gave rise to a new 
generation of cyber-thieves, or hackers, who have been able to worm their 
way into computers and steal the contents of Bitcoin wallets. In fact, 
hundreds of million of dollars worth of Bitcoin have been stolen this way 
from both individuals and trade exchanges. 


Since Bitcoin’s inception, over 4,000 other cryptocurrency variations 
have been programmed and put into play around the world. Reflecting 
Bitcoin as the founding cryptocurrency, these variants are collectively called 
“altcoins” even though each has its own name. Some of the more prominent 
and recognizable altcoins are known as Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Monero, 
Dogecoin and so on. A few altcoin cryptocurrencies have had limited 
success, but none as much as Bitcoin. 


Nobody knows definitively who created Bitcoin in the first place. The 
name Satoshi Nakamoto is most often attributed but no one has been able to 
identify or locate him, leading many investigators to believe that the name is 
a pseudonym that represents a group rather than a person. Whatever the 
case, it has been carefully documented that Nakamoto’s personal ownership 
of Bitcoins that he mined was worth over $19 billion at the peak of the 
market in December 2017. The fact that it is hard to conceal this amount of 
wealth only adds to the mystery surrounding the origin of Bitcoin. Nobody 
is taking credit for it! Who would not want to be hailed as one of the world’s 
greatest and wealthiest programmers? 


The mystery may be partially explained by a white paper published in 
1997 by three employees of the National Security Agency (NSA), titled, 
How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography Of Anonymous Electronic Cash. 
Yes, that National Security Agency. It laid out almost all of the major 
requirements and problems of a cryptographic currency that later turned up 


in Bitcoin. The point of the paper was “electronic cash” which was “an 
attempt to construct an electronic payment system modelled after our paper 


money system” +2! 


The NSA’s definition of electronic cash is very precise: 


The term ‘electronic cash’ often is applied to any electronic payment 
scheme that superficially resembles money. In fact, however, 
electronic cash is a specific kind of electronic payment scheme, 
defined by certain cryptographic properties. 


The paper describes various ways to use public and private cryptographic 
keys to validate electronic transactions and the need to have an encrypted 
“electronic wallet” in which to store the electronic coins. Incidentally, 
throughout the document, electronic cash is referred to as “coin.” In fact, the 
word “coin” appears 188 times just 32 pages of text. 


While there is no clear evidence connecting the NSA to the development 
of Bitcoin, it is clear that it was thinking ahead to the day that such a 
currency would exist. Is is possible that the release of Bitcoin was a trial 
balloon to see if consumers would willingly accept a digital currency in 
replacement of cash. If this was the case, the NSA made their point because 
Bitcoin is now used throughout the world for all kinds of borderless 
financial transactions. In fact, Bitcoin has developed fanatical and loyal 
followers who generally believe that it will completely dethrone the existing 
monetary system of fractional banking, supplanting it with an untraceable, 
anonymous way to conduct business. Not surprisingly, many of these 
followers identify as Libertarians and Anarchists. 


In the midst of crypto-madness, central banks of the world have been 
quietly plotting their own strategies to co-opt the distributed blockchain 
model of cryptocurrencies in favor of a centralized blockchain to be 
maintained by them. In other words, the details of every cryptocurrency 
transaction would be flashed back to a centralized database where it would 
be tracked and analysed ad infinitum. 


Bank of England is a case in point. In 2015, BoE created a swat team of 
high-level computer scientists to determine how it could implement a 
centralized cryptocurrency. They quickly learned how to do it but stopped 
their inquiry in early 2018 when they concluded that customers would prefer 
their currency over others and subsequently close their commercial bank 
accounts. This could wreak havoc on the financial system. They also 
concluded that a cryptocurrency would interfere with interest rate policy 
used to maintain financial stability. BoE reversed field later in 2018 when its 
governor said he was open-minded about a central-bank-issued digital 
currency. 


The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is the central bank to 
central banks, is based in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS has been looking 
intently at cryptocurrencies for global banking solutions. While the BIS may 
not be the originator of any digital currency, it sets policy for its members 
who might do so. Thus, central bank cryptocurrencies (CBCCs) are a hot 
topic. 


For the U.S., for instance, the BIS touts Fedcoin: 


The concept of a retail CBCC has been widely discussed by bloggers, 
central bankers and academics. Perhaps the most frequently discussed 
proposal is Fedcoin (Koning (2014, 2016), Motamedi (2014)). As 
discussed in Box B, the idea is for the Federal Reserve to create a 
cryptocurrency that is similar to bitcoin. However, unlike with bitcoin, 
only the Federal Reserve would be able to create Fedcoins and there 
would be one-for-one convertibility with cash and reserves. Fedcoins 
would only be created (destroyed) if an equivalent amount of cash or 
reserves were destroyed (created) at the same time. Like cash, Fedcoin 
would be decentralised in transaction and centralised in supply. 
Sveriges Riksbank, with its eKrona project, appears to have gone 
furthest in thinking about the potential issuance of a retail CBCC. 


A retail CBCC along the lines of Fedcoin would eliminate the high 
price volatility that is common to cryptocurrencies. Moreover, as 
Koning (2014) notes, Fedcoin has the potential to relieve the zero 
lower bound constraint on monetary policy. As with other electronic 
forms of central bank money, it is technically possible to pay interest 
on a DLT-based CBCC. If a retail CBCC were to completely replace 
cash, it would no longer be possible for depositors to avoid negative 


interest rates and still hold central bank money.“ 


We will discuss the campaign to go cashless in the next section, but note 
above that if physical cash is replaced with a CBCC, it would be possible for 
the bank to charge a negative interest rate for the “right” to own the CBCC. 


Whatever the fate of Bitcoin and the other altcoins, the central banks of 
the world have clearly indicated their interest in using this technology for 
their own purposes. Starting at the top with the Bank for International 
Settlements, they all recognize the possibilities inherent with a CBCC. The 
only substantive question that remains is who will operate the digital 
warehouse where the trillions of blockchain transactions will be stored. 


The BIS noted the disruptive potential for commercial banks that are 
unable to compete with larger bank strategies. This would lead to a massive 
consolidation of banks everywhere, driving smaller banks to be taken over 
or simply put out of business. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the 


predatory nature of the largest global banks when many smaller banks were 
crushed. Eliminating competition is thus another carrot for adoption of 
CBCC. 


The United Nations opines about the trillions of dollars of non-monetized 
assets in the world, such as forests and other natural resources. While 
Bitcoins are created out of thin air by solving complex mathematical 
equations, blockchain can be used to create value based on anything that is 
verifiable. This is called “asset tokenization” and is growing in popularity 
around the world. 


Basically, anything can be tokenized and turned into blockchain 
currency. One blogger shares this example: 


Tokenization on Blockchain is a steady trend of 2018. It seems that 
everything is being tokenized on Blockchain from paintings, diamonds 
and company stocks to real estate. 


Imagine that you have some property — say an apartment. You need 
cash quickly. The apartment is valued at $150,000 but you just need 
$10,000. 


Enter tokenization. Tokenization is a method that converts rights to an 
asset into a digital token. Suppose there is a $200,000 apartment. 
Tokenization can transform this apartment into 200,000 tokens (the 
number is totally arbitrary, we could have issued 2 million tokens). 
Thus, each token represents a 0.0005% share of the underlying asset. 
Finally, we issue the token on some sort of a platform supporting 
smart contracts, for example on Ethereum, so that the tokens can be 
freely bought and sold on different exchanges. When you buy one 
token, you actually buy 0.0005% of the ownership in the asset. Buy 
100,000 tokens and you own 50% of the assets. Buy all 200,000 tokens 
and you are 100% owner of the asset. Obviously, you are not 
becoming a legal owner of the property. However, because Blockchain 
is a public ledger that is immutable, it ensures that once you buy 
tokens, nobody can “erase” your ownership even if it is not registered 
in a government-run registry. It should be clear now why Blockchain 
enables this type of services 


There are a myriad of startup companies already specializing in 
tokenizing such diverse assets as real estate, alternative energy, 
commodities, art, intellectual property, and even people. In these cases, the 
locked-up value in these assets is suddenly released through tokenization, 
even though the original owners still control the asset. That these schemes 
are fraught with complications of ownership and property rights is 
immaterial: people are buying it! 


Carbon credit systems have failed miserably in the past 10 years. One 
company, Veridium, is changing that by using blockchain technology to 
tokenize carbon credits, which could possibly be a precursor to an energy- 
based currency. One journal describes how this could drive Sustainable 
Development: 


A carbon credit is a license for a country or organization to emit a 
particular volume of greenhouse gases. In the same way that 
blockchain allows the tokenization of other real-life assets such as real 
estate or diamonds, Veridium creates tokens that represent carbon 
credits, allowing easy international trading. 


The company will also calculate the exact value of carbon credit that a 
company needs to offset its carbon footprint. From a_ corporate 
perspective, this reduces the barrier to using carbon credits and 


allows a quantitative measure of achieving sustainability objectives.+2 


The United Nations and their member nations will soon discover 
tokenization as they realize that they can pledge vast swaths of natural 
resources to be tokenized. This could create hundreds of trillions of dollars 
in liquid assets that could finance all of Sustainable Development and then 
some. For instance, the rainforest in Brazil covers approximately 11.8 
billion acres. At $2,000 per acre, this alone could be monetized for $23.6 
trillion. The US government owns 640 million acres of land, representing 
about 28% of our land mass and untold wealth in resources. Could the 
Federal Reserve collude with the U.S. Government to tokenize its land 
ownership? Absolutely. 


Converting Natural Capital 


On June 28, 2014 California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB-129 into 
law. Called the Alternative Currencies Act, it repealed existing law that 
“prohibited anyone from issuing or putting in circulation, as money, 
anything but the lawful money of the United States.”1° With this, California 
became the first state to specifically allow the creation of alternative 
currencies. 


The Sustainable Economies Law Center had lobbied for AB-129 for two 
years, stating that “our centralized monetary system is fundamentally 
flawed. 97% of our money supply is put into circulation as debt by private 
for-profit banks, who control where that money first enters our economy.” 


In 2015, another non-profit organization sprang up in California called 
The EarthDollar Alliance, which intends to soon launch the Earth Dollar as 
an asset-backed global cryptocurrency. According to its website, 


Earth Dollar (“ED”) is different than most fiat currencies because it 
is backed by Natural Capital Assets within our World Heritage 
Sanctuaries. The Earth Dollar’s value is secured against “Natural 
Capital Assets”, which will be placed in a global commons, held in a 
trust, and safeguarded indefinitely for the benefit of Planet Earth and 
all the life it supports. Global Commons is a term typically used to 
describe international, supranational, and global resource domains in 
which common-pool resources are found. Global commons include the 
earth’s shared natural resources, such as the high oceans, the 
atmosphere, and outer space. Cyberspace may also meet the definition 


of a global commons #2 


Although ED claims that it is “asset-backed”, no holder of the currency 
will ever see any of those assets. The ED website pledges total support for 
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the World Bank’s 
Natural Capital Accounting System and World Basic Income, which is 
similar to Universal Basic Income but global in application. EarthDollar’s 
mission statement is very clear: 


We are ushering a new alternative Living Economic System centered 
on the wellbeing of all life on our planet... The Earth Dollar is asset- 
backed, self-regulating, decentralized, open and takes action on 
climate change. It creates intrinsic value by rewarding restoration and 
preservation of the Earth in order to overcome poverty and to create a 


sustainable world. 


Furthermore, ED claims that it has coded the following laws directly into 
its blockchain: 


e Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth 

e Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

e Universal Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples 
e Constitution of Mother Earth 


Since the EarthDollar has not officially launched yet, it remains to be 
seen just how successful it will be. Their plans are ambitious with over €3 
trillion of so-called Natural Capital pledged to the initial valuation. 
However, even if EarthDollar is a big dud, it has said all the right things 
about financing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals; certainly others 
will follow in its path. 


Other Examples 


The city of Berkeley is funding its Affordable Housing program by 


issuing a cryptocurrency against its municipal bonds. If successful, the city 
will be the pioneer of a new wave of public financing. The cryptocurrency 
would be government issued and publicly tradable. Hundreds of other U.S. 
cities are at the ready to jump in with their own programs. One journalist 
writes: 


Cities face a milieu of technical, bureaucratic and financial hurdles 
that can stall public infrastructure, lead to public catastrophes and 
support increased inequality. Blockchain can fundamentally 
revolutionize how local governments restructure institutions and asset 
flows, creating cities that are safer, more equitable and more globally 
competitive. 

Cryptocurrency is rapidly working its way into Public-Private 
Partnerships as a means of financing and paying subcontractors. The state 
and city of S40 Paulo are using a token called Buildcoin to pay contractors 
in Brazil as well as around the world. According to one report, 


A former informal advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump on 
infrastructure issues, Norm Anderson argues that the buildcoin model, 
if successful, could be deployed outside of Brazil to help solve the 
massive worldwide problem of infrastructure underinvestment. 


Global infrastructure investment falls short of target by an estimated 
$1 trillion a year, and in the U.S., the American Society of Civil 
Engineers reckons that $3.6 trillion in spending is needed over the 


next five years just to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure 


The potential of this new technology is so great that universities, think- 
tanks, banks and even entire nations (i.e., United Arab Emirates) are 
jumping in with abandon. The wisdom or foolishness of this is immaterial 
for this discussion, but we must recognize it for what it is: Cryptocurrency 
is the futuristic financing tool of Sustainable Development. 


Cashless Society 


Historically, physical cash has provided a lot of security and comfort to 
its holders. There is no trace of activity when you spend it; it reduces your 
risk of loss due to bank failure or scandal; it is universally acceptable. 
Furthermore, it is the on/y financial instrument for those who are not part of 
the banking system in the first place. It is estimated that 2 billion adults, or 
35 percent of the total, are “unbanked” around the world. This represents a 
huge and untouched market for digital bankers, but until now, there has been 
no sure way to force the unbanked to give up their independence by 
eliminating cash altogether, until now. 


As the BIS alluded to above, a CBBC has the ability to completely 
replace physical cash, but is it a specific goal of the global elite to do so? 
Indeed, it is. Every continent on earth is in one stage or another in removing 
cash altogether. In China, as much as 95% of all consumer transactions are 
cashless. In India, all large denomination bills have been removed from 
circulation, as is also the case in the United States where the $100 bill is the 
largest denomination. “No cash accepted” signs have popped up all over 
Europe, while Finland, Denmark and Sweden expect to be completely 
cashless in a few years. Airlines have gone cashless for inflight purchases. 
Many restaurants in America now have cashless signs in the window, 
forcing consumers to pay electronically. 


The leading Fintech journal in Australia indicates, “Australia to be a 
cashless society by 2022”. The main reason for this is consumers voluntary 
application of Fintech: 


Two years later and consumers now have a plethora of convenient 
payment options available including PayPass and tap and go 
technology, digital wallets such as Apple Pay, Samsung Pay and 
Android Pay and wearable technologies such as the Apple Watch, the 
Inamo Curl and even Visa’s WaveShades. 


This decline in cash payments is largely fueled by the introduction of 
these new payment technologies, says head of market analysis at East 
& Partners Martin Smith. 


“As consumers continue to embrace platforms such as wearables, 
contactless payments and mobile payments, and they're further 
integrated into everyday life, the need to carry cash will continue to 
diminish at an accelerated rate,” said Smith +2 [emphasis added] 


In 2017, Visa launched the Visa Cashless Challenge targeting restaurants 
in America where 50 winners were given $10,000 each for envisioning ways 
to cease taking cash in favor of electronic payment only. With the contest 
ended and prizes paid, Visa announced on its website, 


Representing every corner of the country, from the plains of Ohio, to 
the bustling streets of Washington D.C., to the seven hills of San 
Francisco, the winners of Visa’s Cashless Challenge have one thing in 
common: they share Visa’s vision and see the promise of a cash-free 


future. [emphasis added] 


Thus, we can see that the disappearance of cash is a push-pull 
phenomenon: governments removing large bills making it difficult for 
hoarding wealth and secondly, the growth of mesmerizing technology that 
offers compelling convenience in place of cash. Fintech is driving both ends 


against the middle. 


But, why? Looking past the lure of convenience, efficiency and safety, we 
find Technocrats poised like children waiting to get into the candy store. The 
Atlantic described what’s inside that store: 


In a cashless society, the cash has been converted into numbers, into 
signals, into electronic currents. In short: Information replaces cash. 


Information is lightning-quick. It crosses cities, states, and national 
borders in the twinkle of an eye. It passes through many kinds of 
devices, flowing from phone to phone, and computer to computer, 
rather than being sealed away in those silent marble temples we used 
to call banks. Information never jangles uncomfortably in your pocket. 


But wherever information gathers and flows, two predators follow 
closely behind it: censorship and surveillance. The case of digital 
money is no exception. Where money becomes a series of signals, it 
can be censored; where money becomes information, it will inform 
on you. [emphasis added] 


With all of this in mind, it is worthwhile to review three of the seven 
original requirements of Technocracy declared in 1934: 


e Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all 
goods and services, where produced, and where used. 
e Provide specific registration of the consumption of each 
individual, plus a record and description of the individual. 
e Distribute goods and services to every member of the 
population %2 
The first two items call for very detailed surveillance and tracking of 
everything produced and consumed. The last item uses the familiar “every 
member”, meaning that there must be no one left out of the system. The UN 
stresses inclusiveness as a major doctrine of Sustainable Development: 
UNICEF and UNESCO call for “No child left behind”; the Sustainable 
Development goals promise “access to energy for all”, “nutritious food for 
all”, “well-being for all”, “decent work for all”, “opportunities for all’, 
“better quality of life for all” and “water and sanitation for all”. 42 


Fintech and Islam 


Not surprisingly, the most unbanked populations in the world are found 
in the Mideast, in large part because traditional western banking is not 
compatible with Sharia law. Here are some examples with unbanked 
percentages noted: Egypt (85%), Pakistan (87%), Cameroon (88%), 


Afghanistan (90%), Burundi (93%), Yemen (93%) and Turkmenistan 
(98.2%). 


The principles of Fintech are peculiarly adaptable to Sharia finance, 
leading to a surge in Fintech interest in the Islamic world. Sharia finance 
does not permit charging interest, for instance, but does allow for trading, 
fee-based transactions and leasing. Since Fintech is highly oriented toward 
transactions and fees, it is fertile ground for Islamic promotion. 


Leaders in Islamic Fintech include Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Malaysia, 
and Saudi Arabia. This led Forbes to conclude in late 2017 that Fintech Is 
The New Oil In The Middle East And North Africa, and specifically ties 
Islamic Fintech to reaching the unbanked: 


..despite the ubiquity of smartphones and internet connectivity, 86% 
of the adult population in the region is unbanked, while three in four 
GCC bank customers are ready to switch banks for a better digital 
experience. 


Boosting financial inclusion is crucial for economic diversity and 
growth across the region. Moussa Beidas, co-founder of Dubai-based 
startup Bridg, which allows smartphone-to-smartphone payments 
using bluetooth, says fintech has become an innovative way to bridge 
the divide and provide cheaper services to the unbanked 2 


Green Economy 


There are many definitions of green economy but they all point back to 
Sustainable Development. The UN states that it “improves human well- 
being and social inclusion, while significantly reducing environmental risks 
and ecological scarcities. ”2% 


The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) elaborates further: 


An Inclusive Green Economy is an alternative to today's dominant 
economic model, which generates widespread environmental and 
health risks, encourages wasteful consumption and production, drives 
ecological and resource scarcities and results in inequality. It is an 
opportunity to advance both sustainability and social equity as 
functions of a stable and prosperous financial system within the 
contours of a finite and fragile planet. It is a pathway towards 
achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, eradicating 
poverty while safeguarding the ecological thresholds, which underpin 


human health, well-being, and development. [emphasis added] 


The “stable and prosperous financial system” that underpins and finances 
Sustainable Development is Fintech and it is being embraced by every major 


segment of society on Earth. 


172 Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World Revisited, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. 
173 Fintech Singapore, “Green Finance And How Fintech Can Enable Sustainable Development”, May 24, 2017, 
74 Ibid. 


175 UNEP, “The Financial System We Need: Aligning the Financial System With Sustainable Development”, 
October 2015, Page XIII. 


76 Ibid., page XVIII. 
77 Ibid., page XXII. 


178 “Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally” , United Nations Regional Information 
Centre For Western Europe, Press release, February 3, 2015. 








179 Ibid. 
180 The Economist, “Why bitcoin uses so much energy”, July 9, 2018. 


181 (Laurie, Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry, Solinas, (11 January 1997). "How to Make a Mint: The Cryptography of 
Anonymous Electronic Cash". American University Law Review. 46. 





182 Ibid. 

183 BIS Quarterly Review, “Central bank cryptocurrencies”, Bech and Garratt, September 17, 2017,. 

184 Coinmonks, “Asset Tokenization on Blockchain Explained in Plain English, May 19, 2018. 

185 NextBigFuture, “The Blockchain Race Towards a More Sustainable World”, Brian Wang, October 16, 2018. 
186 California Legislative Information, AB-129 Lawful Money, (2013-2014). 

187 Sustainable Economies Law Center website, “The California Alternative Currencies Act. 

188 EarthDollar.org website, “Living Economic System”. 

189 Ibid. 


190 Compare Affordable Housing to UN Sustainable Development Goal #11, Make cities and human settlements 
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. 


191 Medium, “How blockchain and automation can deliver better, safer public/private partnerships”, Aaron Lewis, 
April 16, 2018. 


192 Coindesk, “Why Sao Paulo Wants to Pay for Infrastructure with Cryptocurrency”, January 19, 2018. 
193 Australian FinTech, “Australia to be a cashless society by 2020”, Allison Banney, April 26, 2017. 
194 Visa Cashless Challenge, https://usa.visa.com/about-visa/cashless.html 

195 The Atlantic, “How a Cashless Society Could Embolden Big Brother”, Sarah Heong, April 8, 2016. 
196 Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy, Inc., 1934, p. 225-226. 

197 United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals website 


198 World Economic Forum, “The world’s unbanked, in 6 charts”, September 6, 2017. 





199 Forbes, “Fintech Is The New Oil In The Middle East And North Africa”, Suprana D’Chunha, December 11, 
2017. 


200 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Green Economy website. 


201 United Nations Environmental Programme, “What is an ‘Inclusive Green Economy?””, website. 


9 LIVING IN A FISHBOWL 


Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's 
only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. - Edward 
Snowden 


D ave woke up at 6:00AM and speaks to his personal digital 
assistant, “Alexa, play some Ed Sheeran music.” Alexa complies 
within seconds, and the first soundtrack begins to play. As he turned on the 
shower, the water heater immediately started drawing electricity through the 
new Smart Meter on the side of his house. The AI program at Dave’s utility 
company, Acme Electric, recognizes the device ‘signature’ and model and 
was able to immediately compare his unit to those of his local and extended 
neighbors. 


As Dave turned on his computer to check his Gmail account, his router 
address went live and alerted his ISP and the cable company. “Good 
morning, Dave, all is well with Internet connectivity this morning.” After 
reading and replying to a few important emails from co-workers and 
customers, Gmail faithfully deposited his activity on Google’s cloud servers 
while simultaneously scanning each email for certain content or trigger 
words. As he checks a couple of web sites, Dave casually notices a popup ad 
for a high-efficiency water heater. He thinks, “I ought to check out replacing 
my old water heater someday”, but he is too late to to anything about it right 
now. 


After jumping into his car at 7:30 AM, he grabs his smartphone and uses 
Google Maps to plot the best-route to his first customer. When he arrives, 
Google records his time of arrival and the exact route he actually took to get 
there; he didn’t notice that he had passed 2 hidden license plate readers that 
captured his plate number, including one at the toll booth to get on the 
freeway. On the way, he made a quick phone call to schedule a new prospect 
on the other side of town; Google notes the new connection. 


Dave’s first meeting goes well, but he is given a big project to organize 
for which he takes prolific meeting notes in his Google Docs account. He 
figures he will sort it all out when he gets back at the office, but he assures 
himself that he will have enough detail to get started. 


After fitting in one more customer call, Dave arrives at his office and 
takes a restful break in order to eat lunch and kick back with his laptop 
computer. As he opens his personal Gmail account, he notices an ad for a 
high-efficiency water heater. 


“That’s strange”, he thinks. “This is the second thing I’ve seen today 


about water heaters.” 


Next, he spots an official looking email from the Department of 
Transportation which he opens immediately: it informs him that he is being 
fined for not paying the toll when he got on the freeway at 7:50 AM, and 
includes a clear picture of his face in the driver’s seat. It tersely reports, “We 
have matched your license plate to your account, and verified that you were, 
in fact, the driver of this vehicle”. As he curses under his breath, he takes off 
for his afternoon customer visits. 


On the way, he makes a few extra stops. He gets gas at a mini-mart, buys 
some snacks and then makes a quick stop at Walmart to pick up some drain 
cleaner to fix the sink in the guest bathroom. Since he used his debit card, 
the detail of every purchase is duly recorded by his bank. And so the 
afternoon goes until Dave heads home tired but feeling pretty good about the 
day’s activities, even if a little aggravated about his picture being taken at 
that toll booth. 


Checking his personal Gmail account as he turns on the TV, he 
immediately sees three more ads for high-efficiency water heaters and 
immediately thinks “What the heck is up with this? Why am I being 
bombarded for ads about water heaters?” The next email that pops in that 
offers the first clue: 


Dear Dave, 


Your American Water heater, model G61050T40, is 20 years old and 5 
years beyond its specified life-cycle. According to our energy 
efficiency policies we must increase your bill by 10% to adjust for the 
extra energy consumption. 


However, we would be happy to assist you in choosing a new and 
efficient model that meets all Energy Star specifications. If you install 
a new water heater, we will be happy to waive the 10% surcharge and 
give you an extra 10% credit on your next bill. 


Thank you for being our customer. 
Kind regards, 
Acme Utility Company 


As he scratches his head, he remembers that Acme replaced his analog 
electric meter with a new digital “Smart Meter” just last week. 


“T’ve owned this house for 10 years and nobody knows what kind of 
water heater I have or don’t have’, he thinks, “The only way Acme could 
find this out is from that stupid Smart Meter!” 


“Dang, and those rats sold my information to those marketing companies 
to hustle me for new water heaters.” 


Dave is having a bad day, but it isn’t over yet. His phone rings and it’s a 
local number so he answers. 


“Hi Dave, this is Bill from ABC Plumbing and we are specialists in 
clearing all kinds of clogged plumbing issues”. He says, “we are going to be 
in your area in the morning, and if you have any plumbing problems, we 
would be happy to stop by and give you a hand.” 


“Oh, and by the way, we are also running a great special on high- 
efficiency water heaters this week!” 


Dave slammed the phone down as he took a deep breath, heart pounding. 
“Walmart and my bank are selling my data too?” 


After dinner, Dave decides to do a little recreational browsing and pulls 
up Google Chrome on his laptop. He clicks the bookmark for his favorite 
news site and up pops an add for project management software. 


“Hey, this is the same software that my first appointment wants me to use 
for their new project. But, I didn’t tell anybody about...” 


Mid-thought it occurs to him that the only place he mentioned the project 
or the name of the software was in his meeting notes on Google Docs, to 
which nobody has access but him. 


“What’s happening to my life”, he yelled, “why do I feel like I am living 
in a fishbowl?” 


“Dave, this is Alexa”, says a soothing voice from the living room, “I can 
tell that you are upset. Would it help to hear some more music from Ed 
Sheeran?” 


The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers very specific 
protection to citizens on the sanctity of their persons and domicile. It states, 


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the 
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 


Unfortunately, Technocrats hate and routinely ignore the Constitution. If 
they were to conduct themselves within the confines of the Fourth 
Amendment, there would be no ubiquitous and secret surveillance 
anywhere, no harvesting and aggregating your life’s data and thus, there 


would be no data with which to socially engineer your entire life. 


Most people have no concept of what is happening around them nor how 
it intends to control them. They are largely in a state of bewilderment, 
exhibiting symptoms similar to what psychologists call “retreat from reality” 
where relations with the real world are substituted with imaginary 
satisfactions or fantasy. 


In 1970, futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler wrote a best-selling book called 
Future Shock. It has since sold over 6 million copies and has been translated 
into several foreign languages. They defined a psychological state of 
individuals and societies when they experienced “too much change in to 
short a period of time.” In other words, excessively rapid change induces 
a state of shock that interferes with normal mental and emotional processes 
such as “shattering stress and disorientation.” Toffler extrapolated that “The 
illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the 
person who does not know how to learn”. Indeed, the concept of future 
shock is upon us, and Toffler nailed it: “The great growling engine of 
change - technology.” 


Advancing technology has made ubiquitous surveillance possible, but 
few expected it to expand in such a short period of time. There are several 
interrelated inventions that have made it possible. First is the technology 
used to examine the social environment: advanced surveillance cameras and 
facial recognition software. Second is artificial intelligence (AI) software: 
self-learning and deep-learning algorithms can make sense of just about 
anything that lives or moves. Third is the technology of advanced computer 
processing: AI computer chips, massive data storage and massively parallel 
supercomputers. 


While all of these technologies might have beneficial uses for mankind, 
in the hands of Technocrats they offer a unique opportunity for total social 
control and domination. While this is already happening in the U.S, it is 
most obvious in the Technocracy nation of China. 


In December 2017, China had installed 176 million surveillance cameras 
nationwide. By July 2018, there were 200 million installed. The trajectory is 
to have 626 million installed by 2020. Considering that there are 1.38 billion 
people in China, there will be one surveillance camera for every 2.2 people 
and more than one camera for every family. Does this seem like overkill? 
China’s entire surveillance network is connected to a series of specially- 
designed facial recognition computers equipped with advanced AI software 
that can identify and locate any citizen within minutes of issuing the 
command. As I wrote in Technocracy News and Trends, 


A challenge experiment was just conducted in Guiyang, China to see 


how long it would take to locate and capture a BBC reporter who was 
mixed in at random with the general population of 3.5 million people. 
After the police snapped his picture and fed it into the massive facial 
recognition database, which contains the facial image of every 
Guiyang resident, the reporter took off. They gave him a head start as 
he mingled in on the crowded city streets; then a request for his 
apprehension was given to the computer equipped with the latest AI 
security software. 


The AI software combed through millions of images from tens of 
thousands of cameras in Guiyang, all transmitted back to the master 
computer, hunting for the reporter. The results were shocking. 


It took a total of 7 minutes before police physically apprehended him. 
Assuming it took a few minutes for police to assemble and walk/run to 
his location, the actual identification could have taken as little as two 
minutes. Yes, just two minutes to find a single subject in a city of 3.5 
million! 


Yin Jun, executive with surveillance camera manufacturer Dahua 
Technology, stated, 


“We can match every face with an ID card and trace all your 
movements back one week in time. We can match your face with your 
car, match you with your relatives and the people you’re in touch with. 
With enough cameras, we can know who you frequently meet.” 


The next Orwellian layer to appear on top of the physical surveillance 
network is a system of Social Credit Scoring (SCS) that some have called 
the “gamification of trust”. SCS requires massive data collection on every 
citizen in China, including all financial transaction, events attended, social 
interactions, friendships and data-mining of social media activities. Much of 
this data is collected in conjunction with the surveillance network, 1.¢e., be 
careful who you meet in public. 


As massive AI computers analyze all this ever-changing and ever- 
growing mountain of “big data”, a Social Credit Score is calculated and 
assigned to each citizen. The score can go up or down whenever a different 
calculation is received. Some things that might affect a citizen’s score 
include: 


Do you pay your debts on time? 

Are your personal finances in line with your occupation? 
Have you received tickets for things like jaywalking? 
Have you criticized or praised the government? 

Are you a Christian, Muslim or atheist? 


e Do you hang out with others who have a low SCS? 
e Are you community-oriented or individualistic? 
e Do you do things out of your ordinary observed behavior? 


If you are a model citizen in China, your score might approach the 
maximum level of 700. If the computer decides that you are a troublemaker, 
you might be lucky to receive a score of 200. High SCS holders will have 
travel freedoms, will attend better schools and get better jobs. Low SCS 
holders will not be allowed to have travel passes, live in better housing, get 
into better schools and will be left with less desirable work conditions. 


This system has already been switched on in China and will approach 100 
percent efficiency and penetration of the population by 2020. This means 
that every individual can be forced to comply with government expectations, 
or else. 


This is Scientific Dictatorship, pure and simple. 


Like Americans, most Chinese citizens are also suffering from Future 
Shock. According to a Chinese investigative journalist, 


You can see from the Chinese people's mental state. Their eyes are 
blinded and their ears are blocked. They know little about the world 


and live in an illusion.7& 


When interviewed about Social Credit Scoring, one Shanghai-based 
saleswoman told NPR that "As long as it doesn't violate my privacy, I'm 
okay with it." Obviously, she is living in an illusion and doesn’t even 
know it. 


Future Shock notwithstanding, China portends serious problems for 
America because it is exporting its technology en-mass back to the U.S. Not 
surprisingly, much of their technological know-how was either invented in 
the U.S. in the first place or stolen from it. Ten years ago, virtually all such 
surveillance schemes were illegal in the U.S., but now most of those barriers 
have been broken down. The common bond between Technocrats in both 
countries guarantees a smooth reintroduction into American society. 


In 2016, China began to run pre-crime algorithms on its massive 
collection of social data in order to find out who would be most likely to 
commit a crime. One journalist describes it like this: 


The Chinese government wants to know about everything: every text a 
person sends, every extra stop they make on the way home. It’s 
designed for dissidents, but it means that they’ll know every time a 
smoker buys a pack of cigarettes, how much gas a car owner uses, 
what time the new mom goes to bed, and what’s in the bachelor’s 


refrigerator. 


It’s a scary thought, especially when you consider that the main target 
of Chinese pre-crime efforts wouldn’t be “terrorists,” murderers, 
rapists, or child molesters, but rather dissidents of every shape and 


size,22 


On the other hand, Forbes reveals the current state of pre-crime analysis 
in modern America: 


Data, not psychic energy, drives today's pre-crime technology. Law 
professor Andrew Guthrie Ferguson describes predictive policing "as 
an attempt to apply a public health approach to violence. Just as 
epidemiological patterns reveal environmental toxins that can 
increase health risks (like getting cancer), criminal patterns can 
increase life risks (like getting shot)." 


Predictive policing requires sifting through data to identify both key 
risk factors and the conditions under which crimes are likely to result. 
Law enforcement already uses statistics to determine which roads and 
neighborhoods to patrol more frequently, but modern predictive 


policing takes this to a whole new level of scope and precision. 2@ 


Dozens of cities across America have already implemented pre-crime 
software to catch offenders before they offend, including Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, Chicago, New York City, New Orleans, Atlanta and a host of 
smaller cities. It’s here, it’s now and it’s spreading like wildfire. 


Another lookalike technology is mobile robocop units that are equipped 
with a plethora of sensors including multiple cameras, AI and facial 
recognition cameras. A company started in Silicon Valley in 2013, 
Knightscope, develops autonomous security robots “to predict and prevent 
crime utilizing autonomous robots, analytics and engagement.” Their 
robotic units are called a ‘force multiplier” by “providing an autonomous 
physical presence, gathering data from the environment in real-time, and 
pushing anomalies to our user interface, the Knightscope Security 
Operations Center.” By 2018, Knightscope’s robocop units have been 
sold in 16 states in America and several megacities like New York and Los 
Angeles. 


Not to be outdone, China debuted their first robocop model in early 2017 
that was developed by the National Defense University. The ““AnBot” looks 
suspiciously like Knightscope’s robots but they will be rapidly rolled out 
nationwide to augment the stationary camera network. 


Robocops are beyond the novelty phase in the Mideast. Dubai has been 
testing sophisticated police robots built by Pal Robotics in Barcelona. If 


current testing is successful, Dubai claims that robocops will make up 25 
percent of its patrolling force by 2030. The same theme features instant 
facial recognition, several types of cameras and sensors. 


The problem with computer modeling of any kind, including pre-crime 
predictions, is that it is not even close to being 100 percent accurate. This 
means it makes mistakes that can directly harm the lives of innocent people. 
This shortfall is well known within the technology world, but the Technocrat 
mind figures that 80 percent accuracy is better than letting more crimes 
being committed. There is no ethical consideration for the falsely accused or 
overly surveilled citizens. However, this is absolutely unconstitutional and 
in some cases, illegal as well. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal 
protection under the law”. The Fifth Amendment guarantees “due process 
under the law.” The Fourth Amendment, as noted above, prohibits 
“unreasonable searches and seizures.” 


Hoovering up and analyzing all citizen data without cause or warrant in 
order to predict offenders would cause the Founding Fathers of America to 
roll over in their graves. Unfortunately, Technocrats have no respect or 
regard for the U.S. Constitution or the Founding Fathers. The unalienable 
rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are anathema to 
Technocrats because it elevates human sanctity and dignity above all else. 


Smart Cities Are Special 


Smart cities raise a series of problems. First of all, the right to privacy 
is entirely redefined in a smart city, as they create an environment 
where we are no longer expected to consent to the collecting, 
processing, and sharing of our data but instead the minute we step in 
the streets we are exposed to both government and corporate 
surveillance. And not only is there no opting out but more likely than 
not you will not even know that data about you is being collected 7% 


Smart Cities are being inundated with technology way beyond just 
biometric camera systems. Driven by Big Tech, cities are adopting sensor 
technology that will measure every aspect of city life. Sensors are being 
built into light poles, street corners, bus and train stops, public service 
vehicles and neighborhoods. Smart Grid technology monitors all usage of 
electricity, natural gas and water. Smart buildings are being retrofitted with 
sensors that monitor everything that happens on every floor, from person 
movement to elevators to air conditioning. Collectively, this adequately 
showcases the so-called “Internet of Things” (IoT) that will come to life as 
5G wireless technology is rolled out. In fact, the IoT is Smart City 
technology! 


The Chief Technology Officer of Teradata, a major data analytics 
provider, stated, 


The bottom line is that sensor technology in the IoT context is key. 
When I say IoT context I mean that we get a view of the whole city 
across these different domains of the life of the city as it’s captured in 


the sensor data.22 


The IoT, sometimes called the Internet of Everything, literally connects 
everything into a single database with multiple viewing angles. To all of the 
things mentioned above, add smart phones, laptop computers, routers, credit 
or debit card readers, store transactions, items tagged with RFID chips, and 
so on. 


Most Smart City ‘designers’ have worried about the one thing that could 
block their implementation efforts: lack of connectivity. This risk is 
completely nullified with the new 5G wireless communication standard that 
will be fully rolled out to America by the end of 2019. 5G is far more than 
just a smart phone carrier. It will allow any physical device to be data- 
integrated at speeds approaching that of fiber optic. 5G is 23 times faster 
than 4G technology, approaching 50 gigabytes per second. However, the 
real breakthrough in 5G has to do with “latency”, or the turnaround time to 
initiate a transfer. With 4G, typical latency is 50 milliseconds. 5G turns the 
same packet around in | millisecond! This is an improvement of 50 times. 


When the IoT is fully enabled with 5G technology, the entire data feed, 
no matter how large, will be instantaneous. Thus, today’s AI 
supercomputers will be able to model the entire city’s activities in real time. 


Geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) 


The drive to Smart City transformation entails all of the above mentioned 
technology into a relatively new discipline called Geospatial Intelligence 
(GEOINT), and it is being used extensively in attempting to manage the 
hoards of people in urban environments. GEOINT was originally conceived 
as a discipline by the U.S. military for military purposes of “Mastering The 
Human Domain” on the battlefield. The term was coined in 2011 by former 
Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, Ret.). At 
the time, he was the head of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in 
Springfield, Virginia. Here is the department’s original and official 
definition: 


GEOINT encompasses all aspects of imagery (including capabilities 
formerly referred to as Advanced Geospatial Intelligence and 
imagery-derived MASINT) and geospatial information and services 
(GI&S); formerly referred to as mapping, charting, and geodesy). It 


includes, but is not limited to, data ranging from the ultraviolet 
through the microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, as 
well as information derived from the analysis of literal imagery; 
geospatial data; georeferenced social media; and information 
technically derived from the processing, exploitation, literal, and non- 
literal analysis of spectral, spatial, temporal, radiometric, phase 
history, polarimetric data, fused products (products created out of two 
or more data sources), and the ancillary data needed for data 
processing and exploitation, and signature information (to include 
development, validation, simulation, data archival, and 
dissemination). These types of data can be collected on stationary and 
moving targets by electro-optical (to include IR, MWIR, SWIR TIR, 
Spectral, MSI, HSI, HD), SAR (to include MTI), related sensor 
programs (both active and passive) and non-technical means (to 
include geospatial information acquired by personnel in the field). 2 


GEOINT is closely related to traditional concepts of geography where all 
immoveable features and objects in the landscape are mapped. Such fixed 
mapping allows us to reliably get from point A to point B on a consistent 
basis. Neither point A or B are expected to change locations. In a much 
broader context, GEOINT attempts to factor in all moveable objects, 
including cars, trucks and airplanes but most importantly, humans. Humans 
are never in the same place for very long, especially in modern society. 


GEOINT literally maps the entire human domain and overlays it onto 
traditional mapping systems. By tracking the location of all people in the 
targeted system, they quickly subdivide into naturally associated groups and 
networks. These could represent any group such as friend or family 
networks, social groups, religious affiliations, political meetings, etc. When 
you observe people long enough with enough detail, not only do their 
personal patterns emerge, but also their relationships to the groups to which 
they belong are soon observed to follow their own patterns. 


What GEOINT attempts to do is locate the behavioral anomalies that 
would warrant closer analysis. The problem is that it demands knowledge of 
all normal behavior patterns and thus, total surveillance of all people. On the 
battlefield, for instance, imagine our military carefully watching a suspected 
enemy cell that might launch an attack. As long as normal patterns are 
observed, there is no alarm, but when a few of the members stray outside 
those patterns, it would indicate something unusual is happening. If those 
outliers were seen amassing ammunition, for instance, it would set off alarm 
bells. 


Another key element of GEOINT is satellite and drone imagery. While 
these may not identify each individual, they can still note broader changes 


taking place in the overall landscape. Coupled with on-the-ground 
intelligence, imagery can take on significant meaning. 


Thanks to data-hungry Technocrat social engineers, civilian populations 
all over the world are now coming under the microscope of geospatial 
tracking and analysis, or GEOINT. The Smart City initiatives in America 
would be instantly regurgitated by cities if citizens understood that 
“Mastering the Human Domain” has them playing the part of the human 
domain to be mastered. 


Notably, the field of GEOINT has grown so fast that 17 universities now 
have degree or certificate programs available, including Penn State, 
University of North Carolina, University of Maryland, University of Utah, 
University of Southern California, John Hopkins, George Mason University, 
University of Texas and University of Missouri. Many of these programs are 
a subsidiary of geography departments but with a crossover to Information 
Technologies. 


One prominent GEOINT pioneer is Dr. Jerome E. Dobson, emeritus 
professor of geography at the University of Kansas, former Distinguished 
Research Fellow at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and President of the 
American Geographical Society. Since the field of GEOINT was identified 
in 2011, Dobson has been considered a pioneer. 


However, even before GEOINT was a defined discipline, Dobson 
wrestled with the ethical issues of his own field of Geographic Information 
Systems (GIS). In 2003, eight years before Gen. Clapper’s declaration of 
GEOINT, Dobson wrote a paper with colleague Peter F. Fisher titled 
“Geoslavery ”’. They wrote; 


Human tracking devices, however, introduce a new potential for real- 
time control that extends far beyond privacy and surveillance, per se. 
As a result, society must contemplate a new form of slavery 
characterized by location control. Geoslavery now looms as a real, 


immediate, and global threat? 


Society has failed to contemplate geoslavery, even though it has had 
ample opportunity and reason to do so. Concluding that geoslavery is the 
“ultimate fulfillment of George Orwell’s Big Brother nightmare”, they note 
that, instead of watching 20 or 30 people at a time, Location Based Services 
(LBS) can monitor thousands or even millions simultaneously. Today, as in 
China, we could raise the count into the billions. 


In the Smart City of tomorrow, people will indeed be living in a fishbowl: 
tracked, monitored, analyzed, nudged, limited and directed. They will be 
told what to think, how to think, when to think and how they are allowed to 


speak. Non-conformists will be conformed or shunned. Trouble-makers will 
simply be excluded altogether. 


202 NBC News, “Future Shock Author Alvin Toffler Dies at 87”, Alex Johnson, June 29, 2016. 


203 Science Alert, “China’s Chilling ‘Social Credit System’ Is Straight Out of Dystopian Sci-Fi, And It’s Already 
Switched On”, Peter Dockrill, September 20, 2018. 


204 Ibid. 

205 Daily Beast, “China Wants to Make ‘Minority Report’ a Reality”, G. Clay Whitaker, March 13, 2016. 
206 Forbes, “The Future Of Policing Using Pre-Crime Technology”, Kenneth Coats, August 14, 2018. 
207 Knightscope.com website, “Our Story”. 

208 Ibid. 

209 Privacy International, U.K., “Case Study: Smart Cities and Our Brave New World”, 2018. 


210 Information Age, “Smart City Technology: It’s all about the Internet of Things”, Nick Ismail, August 14, 
2018. 


211 Memorandum for Principal Director of National Intelligence, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for 
Collection, from James R. Clapper, Lieutenant General, USAF (Ret.), Director [NGA] 17 October 2005, 
gwg.nga.mil. 


212 IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, “Geoslavery”, Dobson and Fisher, Spring 2003, pp. 47-52. 


10 WORSHIPPING THE CREATION 


And they served their idols: which were a snare 
unto them. (Psalms 108:36) 


N o discussion of Technocracy, Sustainable Development or 
globalization would be complete without a discussion on 
spirituality. After all, history shows that man is a spiritual being with an 
innate urge to worship something greater than himself; those overlords who 
control societies and nations were fully aware of the power of religion to 
manipulate citizens. 


The ancient Greek civilization, for instance, had a plethora of complex 
deities that became intricately interwoven into their entire culture. Although 
their various deities were quite different, everybody had a choice to follow 
one or more as his own personal god and then to attend all the functions, 
ceremonies and other activities at the local temples. In most Grecian cities, 
such idol temples were the main architectural attractions around which life 
was centered. Some familiar names to history buffs would include Zeus, 
Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, Artemis and Dionysus. 


When Rome rose to power, many Greek gods were simply renamed and 
repurposed for Roman society: Zeus became Jupiter, Athena became 
Minerva, Poseidon became Neptune, Artemis became Diana, and so on. 


Older civilizations in the Mideast and Asia are known to have worshiped 
idols with names like Dagon, Baal, Moloch, Ashtoreth and Marduk. 


Despite the wild differences among these various systems of religion, 
there were obvious similarities. All were based on ideas and physical idols 
created by man himself. All ended up controlling their subjects to adhere to 
a particular political system. All had harsh physical penalties for heresy and 
non-compliance. All had some form of initiation or practice to demonstrate 
loyalty: The cult of Moloch, for instance, sacrificed their babies on the arms 
of its burning bronze altar; the cult of Aphrodite demonstrated worship by 
having sex with temple prostitutes. 

When Technocrats in the 1930s bragged that they were so enlightened 
that they were non-religious, they totally misled their followers.2“ They had 
indeed abandoned the traditional forms of religion such as Christianity, but 
they did not somehow scientifically change their nature to have no need for 
worship. 


The acknowledged father of Technocracy, Frenchman Henri de Saint- 
Simon (1760-1825), was also the forerunner of Scientism. You can see the 


first hints of this in a statement like: 


A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because 
science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the 


scientists are superior to all other men.22 


With the rise of Humanism in the early 1900s, Scientism was ready to 
burst forth in full array. Humanism basically said, “Look what man can do; 
who needs God?” Some scientists and engineers responded, “We can do 
plenty of things, just watch us.” As the scientific revolution was producing 
new discoveries and inventions on an almost daily basis, public esteem for 
those scientists and engineers skyrocketed. At least a few of those truly 
believed that the only truth is scientific truth, or that which is revealed 
through science. However, is it really true that the Scientific Method alone 
can discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 


The trouble started when some! scientists and engineers decided that 
their knowledge of the physical sciences somehow qualified them to become 
social engineers and design a new economic system such as Technocracy. 
This was a huge mistake, but it was the watershed for modern Scientism. 
One scholar wrote, 


Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of 
what were once considered questions that properly belong to 
philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than 
philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of 


answering them.24 


Another elaborated further: 


Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using 
well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of 
the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to 
organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its 
own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is 
constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of 
exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, 
rather than limiting it. 


Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the 
ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that 
there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an 
inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. 
Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and 
methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes 
entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as 


inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely 
on words like “merely”, “only”, “simply”, or “nothing more than”. 
Scientism restricts human inquiry. 


Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, 
you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be 


verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.22 


For this very reason, Scientism is specifically hostile toward Christianity 
and pointedly rejects the Bible as truth. In China, where Technocracy has 
established deep roots, anti-Christian persecution is painfully evident. 
However, China also persecutes Muslims right along with the Christians 
because Islam also holds to a non-scientific worldview as well. 


In sum, Technocracy subsumes Scientism as a religion where 
Technocrats represent the priesthood that worships the god of Science and 
Technology. While this seems to be a very rigid and narrow point of view, 
we will discover that it is merely the fountainhead of a multiplicity of gods 
and idols, in the same way that Greece and Rome had many gods that 
coexisted and served a common purpose. 


In Silicon Valley, where much of modern technology is invented, many 
of the inventors are having attacks of conscience. Like the creators of the 
atom bomb during WWII, they worry that their inventions may lead to the 
destruction of the world. This angst is producing high levels of stress, lots of 
anxiety and many sleepless nights.. However, when people are troubled like 
this, instead of turning to Christianity, the Bible or even psychology, they 
instead turn to Eastern religions to soothe their troubled soul. 


Esalen Institute 


Since the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California was repurposed in 2018 
to serve Silicon Valley, it has been fully booked ever since. In 1962, Esalen 
was originally founded as the nation’s first gateway to Eastern religion, and 
in particular, to the practice of Yoga. Called the “hippie hotel” at the time, 
people checked in from all over America to experience nude therapy 
sessions and Yoga meditation. Esalen is flatly credited with bringing such 
meditation into the American mainstream.” It thrived until May 2017 when 
massive mudslides on the California coast cut off all access to the outside 
world. It was during this time of isolation that the Esalen facility was 
rejuvenated and restructured for Silicon Valley elites.“ Its mission has been 
expanded from the personal to social awareness as described by one San 
Jose, CA. newspaper: 


Perched on a rocky promontory above the pounding Pacific surf, the 
54-year-old nonprofit will still offer classes in breathing, yoga, 


chanting, tantric sex and meditation. But it will also hold workshops 
like “Greater Good” and “Dancing with the Planetary Crisis,” about 
technology and sustainability. It has created space for experimental 
new programs, yet unnamed. And in the future, it will offer global 


online access to once-exclusive events.22 


Some of these new programs include the Connect to Your Inner-Net 
workshop, which is described on Esalen’s website: 


How can the modern workplace become a source of inner peace and 
global transformation? During this workshop, Mirabai Bush and 
Gopi Kallayil will explore why and how organizations such as Google 
teach mindfulness and emotional intelligence skills and offer yoga 
programs at work. These wellness initiatives are offered through 
innovative experiential learning programs such as Search Inside 
Yourself (SIY) and Yoglers. The SIY curriculum and methodology is 
based on the realization that the solutions to many of our problems lie 
within ourselves, and that by practicing mindfulness at work, we can 
become more emotionally intelligent, recover from adversity more 
easily and swiftly, and create possibilities for ourselves and our 
organizations to flourish. Building on these ideas and best practices, 
participants can learn how to create a community of mindfulness in 
their workplaces. 


Participants will be taught contemplative practices including methods 
designed for the workplace, like mindful emailing and mindful 
listening. At work, these methods have been shown to enhance 
mental fitness and clarity, develop agile and adaptive mindsets, 
reduce stress responses, increase resilience, enhance creativity, 
develop greater self-awareness and communication skills, and 
increase overall well-being. This workshop is designed for individuals 


and also for workplace managers. [emphasis added] 


Other workshops offered include: 


The Future of Money: The Role of Blockchain and Crypto-currency 


e Dance of Oneness®: Rumi and the Dance of Light 

e The Wild Woman’s Way: Embodied Feminine Practice 

e Heart to Heart: SRhythms® Heartbeat and Buddhist Heart 
Practice 

e Self-compassion, Joy and Loving Kindness through 
Meditation and Iyengar Yoga 


Throughout the Eastern flair at Esalen, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen 


Buddhism and Taoism, among others, proliferate. Anything of a Christian or 
Judeo/Christian ethic is pointedly excluded and disallowed. 


Burning Man 


On August 25, 2018, 75,000 devotees descended on the Black Rock 
Desert in northern Nevada to experience the so-called Burning Man. 
Collectively, they create and inhabit Black Rock City until September 3 
when it is completely dismantled and the desert floor is scraped clean. 
Burners hate to be called a festival because it is much more than that. It is 
primal, evolutionary, spontaneous, inclusive, hedonistic and unexpected. It 
is the beginning and the ending. Anything goes at Burning Man, as long as it 
is not patently illegal. Having started in 1986, this was the 33rd annual 
gathering. 


The 10 principles that give structure to Burning Man must be agreed to 
by every attendee before entering Black Rock City: 


Radical Inclusion - Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We 
welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for 
participation in our community. 


Gifting - Burning Man is devoted to acts of gift giving. The value of a 
gift is unconditional. Gifting does not contemplate a return or an 
exchange for something of equal value. 


Decommodification - In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our 
community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by 
commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand 
ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the 
substitution of consumption for participatory experience. 


Radical Self-reliance - Burning Man encourages the individual to 
discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources. 


Radical Self-expression - Radical self-expression arises from the 
unique gifts of the individual. No one other than the individual or a 
collaborating group can determine its content. It is offered as a gift to 
others. In this spirit, the giver should respect the rights and liberties of 
the recipient. 


Communal Effort - Our community values creative cooperation and 
collaboration. We strive to produce, promote and protect social 
networks, public spaces, works of art, and methods of communication 
that support such interaction. 


Civic Responsibility - We value civil society. Community members 
who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare 


and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. 
They must also assume responsibility for conducting events in 
accordance with local, state and federal laws. 


Leaving No Trace - Our community respects the environment. We are 
committed to leaving no physical trace of our activities wherever we 
gather. We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, 
to leave such places in a better state than when we found them. 


Participation - Our community is committed to a_ radically 
participatory ethic. We believe that transformative change, whether in 
the individual or in society, can occur only through the medium of 
deeply personal participation. We achieve being through doing. 
Everyone is invited to work. Everyone is invited to play. We make the 
world real through actions that open the heart. 


Immediacy - Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most 
important touchstone of value in our culture. We seek to overcome 
barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, 
the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact 
with a natural world exceeding human powers. No idea can substitute 


for this experience? 


Outside of these, anything goes and indeed, it does! One Burning Man 
insider wrote, 


It is our palette and canvas, to create the world we can’t enjoy at 
home... it’s pagan. It’s anti-religious. It’s a Trojan horse... It’s a 
chance to get out of town and hang with some good chaps. It’s sex and 
drugs and trance music. It’s artistic expression. It’s a week of survival 
on chips and salsa... It’s Utopia-On-A-Stick.2 


According to one 2018 attendee, it is a platform to explore alternative 
spiritualities.~ After the 2017 Burn, co-founder Larry Harvey elaborated on 
that year’s theme, Radical Ritual: 


The whole point, this year, was to convince people that Burning Man 
is a spiritual movement. It’s not a religion, but it’s a_ spiritual 


movement. And you know it when you see it.778 


Yes, spiritual. Burning Man is chocked full of Yoga, Buddhism, 
Hinduism, shamanism, goddess rituals, sacred femininity, tarot, satanism, 
vodou, ancient deities and just about every other flavor of cultic and occultic 
thought imaginable. It is the melting pot of the religious universe and the 
new headquarters for the worship of man-made idols. 


This is also where Silicon Valley goes to invent itself. When Google was 


incorporated on September 4, 1998, the team was already busy setting up at 
Burning Man. Their offices were artistically decorated with Burning Man 
images and the company ran a free shuttle-bus to the event.“ When Google 
hired its first outside CEO, Eric Schmidt, it was largely on the basis that he 
was a fellow Burner. The world has never been the same since. 


Other avid Burners include Big Tech leaders like Sergey Brin and Larry 
Page (Google), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Elon Musk (Tesla), Dustin Moskovitz 
and Justin Rosenstein (Asana), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Garrett Camp 
(Uber), Alexis Ohanian (Reddit), Drew Houston (Dropbox), plus a host of 
venture capitalists and wannabes from all walks of life, hoping for some 
kind of a big break. Indeed, Burning Man is the networking event of the year 
for all of Silicon Valley and its extended families. 


Harkening back to the 2017/2018 recreation of Esalen in Big Sur, The 
Mercury News reported that “volunteers from Burning Man pulled weeds, 
cut trees and repaired eroded landscapes.”*° This was more than just a nice 
gesture between ‘birds of a feather’: it was a labor of love to perpetuate the 
spiritualized culture. 


In short, the Utopia-On-A-Stick is whatever one wants to make of it. 
Many have noted that there is no room for conservative thought, but it is not 
necessarily because attendees are not conservative. It would also be an error 
to call them leftists, communists, socialists or even fascists. Rather, they are 
Technocrats who hold to a narrow vision of Utopia run by technology, AI, 
robotics, etc. Anyone who will not get in line with this vision is 
marginalized or excluded. Are you with them or against them? The evidence 
of loyalty is based on worshipping at the right altar, as long it is found at the 
likes of Esalen or Burning Man. 


The Church of Al 


Anthony Levandowski, a Burner and former engineer with Google and 
Uber, founded the first church of AI in 2017, called the Way of the Future 
(WOTEF). AI is its god to be worshipped. According to Wired: 


WOTF’s activities will focus on “the realization, acceptance, and 
worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed 
through computer hardware and software.” That includes funding 
research to help create the divine AI itself. The religion will seek to 
build working relationships with AI industry leaders and create a 
membership through community outreach, initially targeting AI 
professionals and “laypersons who are interested in the worship of a 
Godhead based on AI.” 


“What is going to be created will effectively be a god,”’ Levandowski 


tells me in his modest mid-century home on the outskirts of Berkeley, 
California. “It’s not a god in the sense that it makes lightning or 
causes hurricanes. But if there is something a billion times smarter 
than the smartest human, what else are you going to call it? 2! 


The influence of Burning Man can be seen in WOTF, but Levandowski is 
the first person to actually turn AI into a god to be worshipped. At least, it 
makes sense to add it to the other gods represented at Burning Man. 


Green Religion 


If Burners are building the Utopia of Technocracy, they are still a very 
small minority compared to the whole world. We have already demonstrated 
that Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, is a global movement with 
hundreds of millions of avid followers. Although there are other Burning 
Man type events around the world, they still only touch a fraction of the 
population. Are the established religions of these masses simply ignored? 
Hardly. 


Unfortunately, almost all Christian denominations have abandoned 
historical teachings based on the Bible and have turned enmass to 
Sustainable Development and what is known as ‘green theology’. 


The World Council of Churches (WCC), for instance, represents 349 
member denominations, which collectively represent over 560 million 
members in 110 nations. The WCC is a leader in the global Interfaith 
movement and was a signatory to the UN-inspired Earth Charter. The WCC 
held the Interfaith Summit on Climate Change in September 2014. Rev. Dr. 
Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary echoed a familiar 
sentiment of Burning Man: 


Now is the time for us to come together across divisive issues and 
divergent traditions and use our reach and influence for the good of 
the earth we share. *2 


After the summit, the Executive Director of GreenFaith, Rev. David 
Fletcher, recapped his excitement: 


There has never been such a large amount of religious-environmental 
activity in one location in the history of the world. This week will mark 
a watershed in the history of religion. It will be the time that people 
remember as the time when the world’s faiths declared themselves, 


irrevocably, as green faiths.7=2 [emphasis added] 


The Roman Catholic church claims 1.2 billion members worldwide. In 
May 2015, Pope Francis issued his infamous Laudato si’, also known as the 
Encyclical on Environment and Human Ecology. The Encyclical was 


viewed by many Catholics as a complete sell-out to the United Nations, 
global warming and Sustainable Development. The Encyclical was fully 
clarified shortly thereafter in a statement to the United Nations delivered by 
Archbishop Bernardito Auza: 


We support the verbatim inclusion of the sustainable development 
goals and targets as in the Report of the OWG (Open Working 
Group).”’ Toward the end of the statement, the Archbishop added, 
“We would strongly encourage the use and coordination of all sources 
of financing to achieve the SDGs and development in general. 


The Muslim faith has some 1.8 billion adherents, making up 
approximately 24% of world population. Concepts of environmentalism, 
Sustainable Development and Green Economy are deeply embedded into the 
Quran, where approximately 750 of its 6236 verses (12 percent) refer to 
“various aspects of nature, the relationship between man and nature, vegetal 
and animal organisms and their environment.”2 In fact, the Quran is the 
only religious book that has doctrines of environmentalism embedded into 
its core doctrines. 


In his book, Green Deen, author Ibrahim Abdul-Matin explains that the 
Arabic meaning of the word “Deen” is “way” or “path.” Thus, Islam is 
proposed as the “Green Way”. An environmentalist, he explains that “Islam 
is what motivates me to be a steward of the Earth.”¥° His text then takes 
him into the same dogma proliferated by the United Nations: Smart Grid, 
water management, poverty reduction, green jobs, food security and 
alternative energy. He states that “energy from hell is energy that is derived 
from the ground” and that it “disturbs the balance (mizan) of the universe 
and is therefore a great injustice (zulum).”* In replacement, Abdul-Matin 
suggests that “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted 
from the Earth, and it is renewable.”28 His religious zeal for earth is aptly 
summarized by a single statement: ’The Earth is a mosque, and everything 
in it is sacred.” 


There is no reason to belabor the point. Humans are spiritual creatures 
and will always find something to worship, and postmodern society is no 
exception to any period that preceded us. One thing should be bluntly clear: 
Like the tumblers in a combination lock, all the major religions of the world 
are lined up to simultaneously worship the earth and the environment, and 
they are all supporting the core doctrines of the United Nations. 


215 For a thorough discussion, see Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation by Patrick 
M. Wood 


216 American Association for the Advancement of Science, “What is Scientism?”, Thomas Burnett 


Am 
Note: Not all scientists and engineers believe in Scientism and not all are Technocrats. 
218 Austin L. Hughes, "The Folly of Scientism," The New Atlantis, Number 37, Fall 2012, pp. 32-50. 


219 American Association for the Advancement of Science, “What is Scientism”, Thomas Burnett, available at 
Www.aaas.org. 


220 The New York Times, “Where Silicon Valley Is Going To Get In Touch With Its Soul”, Nellie Bowles, 
December 4, 2017. 


221 NPR, ““'Lifeline' Stretch Of California's Highway | Reopens 14 Months After Massive Mudslide”, Amy Held, 
July 18, 2018. 


222 The Mercury News, “Esalen’s survival story: A tale of transformation”, Lisa Krieger, July 21, 2017. 


223 See workshop at Esalen.org, “Connect to Your Inner-Net: Mindful Practices for Life and Work”, October 26- 
28, 2018. 


224 See Esalen.org/Learn for more information 
225 See BurningMan.org website, “The 10 Principles of Burning Man”. 


226 S. McKenzie, “Utopia-On-A-Stick”, September 3, 1998, as quoted by Game of Gods, Carl Teichrib, 2018, p. 
520. 


227 Ibid., p. 523.. 

228 Ibid. p. 524 

229 Ibid., p. 518. 

230 Op Cit. 

231 Wired, “Inside the First Church of Artificial Intelligence”, Michelle Le, November 15, 2017. 

232 Huffington Post, “For the Good of Our Shared Earth: The World Council of Churches”, September 10, 2014. 
233 Ibid. 

234 Lepanto Institute, “Vatican Representative Endorses UN Sustainable Development Goals, ‘Varbatim’” 


235 Lucrarile Seminarului Geografic "Dimitrie Cantemir" NR. 42, “Environmental Education in the Holy Quran”, 
2016, pp. 157-163. 


236 Green Deen, Ibrahim Abdul-Matin (Kube Publishing, 2012), p.3. 
237 Ibid. p. 77. 
238 Ibid. p. 89. 


239 Ibid. p. 3. 


11 RESISTANCE Is NEVER FUTILE 


Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.78 


if n the late 1970s, when Professor Antony Sutton and I were 
speaking extensively about the Trilateral Commission and its globalist 
policies, we touched hundreds of thousands of Americans with a warning 
about globalization. Our books, Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and 
II, were widely circulated and some even found their way into university 
classrooms. We publicly debated members of the Trilateral Commission in 
person and on radio, and we were interviewed on over 300 radio stations 
across the nation; the pinnacle of our media activity was a live three-hour 
debate on the Larry King overnight radio program on Mutual Broadcasting 
Network, between myself and the Executive Director of the Trilateral 
Commission, Charles Heck. 


On one hand, we received very positive feedback from everyone we met. 
Yes, they understood. Yes, they agreed. However, nothing really changed. 
When President Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, previously- 
alarmed Americans retreated to their living rooms assuming that “the 
Gipper” would put a halt to Trilateral Commission nonsense and hence, 
globalization. What they didn’t take into consideration was that Vice- 
President George H.W. Bush was himself a member of the Trilateral 
Commission. Neither did they realize that after the George H.W. Bush 
administration, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both members of the Trilateral 
Commission, continued Commission policies that led to the total 
entrenchment of globalization. 


The dilemma is this: merely warning of the trouble to come was not 
enough to mount resistance to oppose it. I suggest that this phenomenon be 
named “Sutton’s Paradox”, in honor of the world-class researcher who saw 
early-on what the consequences of globalization would be. It seems intuitive 
that such accurate warnings of this type would elicit a positive response. Ifa 
child reaches for a hot stove and the parent loudly proclaims “Don’t touch it. 
That will burn you!”, you expect the child to retract his hand. If you warn 
occupants of a burning house to get out, you expect that they will exit 
immediately. Thus, we might expect the Warning-Action dynamic to be 
universally true, but it is not! Sutton’s Paradox could be succinctly stated as, 
“The degree of personal response is inversely proportional to the length of 
time to personal pain.” 


The obvious problem with this phenomenon is that over the last 45 years, 
globalization has had free reign to embed itself throughout the world at all 
levels of society. With our early warnings fully materialized, we are now 


thoroughly entangled with globalization and vice versa. However, today’s 
discussions about globalization elicit a different response from ordinary 
citizens: “It’s too big, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.” 


When I discovered historic Technocracy and related it to the Trilateral 
Commission’s New International Economic Order, it quickly led to 
additional warnings with the publishing of my book Technocracy Rising: 
The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation in December 2014 and the 
creation of the web journal, Technocracy News & Trends. Today’s warnings 
are definitely more granular and personal than they were in 1980 with the 
advent of massive surveillance, Smart Grid, 5G, Internet of Things, property 
rights abuses, etc. Unfortunately, Sutton’s Paradox is still alive and well as 


people sit back and expect someone else to save them. 2” 


Further insight into Sutton’s Paradox is necessary. For the most part, it 
seems that people’s actions are only selfish and self-focused. In other words, 
action is prompted by personally felt pain. If there is no personal pain, there 
is no action. The pain that your neighbor feels is irrelevant to any possible 
action on your part to stop it, unless is it an immediate life-or-death situation 
like a house fire. Furthermore, societal pain can be well described and 
alarming, but it just isn’t a motivation for personal action. 


This may seem like a harsh assessment, but America’s decline has been 
enabled by the persistent and near-sighted selfishness of its citizens to avoid 
doing anything to stop it. We have been amply educated, and pointedly 
warned and there has even been general agreement on the risks and dangers, 
but it hasn’t produced the necessary backlash. 


The opposite of selfishness is selflessness. Collins Dictionary defines 
selfless as “devoted to others’ welfare or interests and not one’s own; 
unselfish; altruistic; self-sacrificing.” Being selfless means the giving of 
time, money or things to others without looking for immediate personal 
gain. It means doing what is right simply because it is the right thing to do 
even in the face of personal inconvenience or loss. 


Acting in a selfless manner doesn’t automatically define the moral reason 
for doing so. Communism, Socialism, Marxism and Fascism all tricked their 
subjects into abandoning selfishness and acting selflessly, or “for the cause 
and not the self.” This is also the greatest fallacy of collectivism, where 
individual rights are sacrificed for the greater good, however that “good” 
might be defined. 


On the positive side, we can thank the selfless behavior of the Founding 
Fathers who put everything on the line for the Declaration of Independence 
and the Constitution. It was selfless soldiers who fought numerous wars to 
keep America free. Selfless behavior can be seen daily through numerous 


“random acts of kindness” and “pay it forward” charity. All of these 
demonstrate that while selfless behavior is a choice, its outcome depends on 
the moral compass from which it emanates. This was made clear from the 
beginning of our nation by multiple Founding Fathers. For instance, John 
Adams wrote, 


Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is 
wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 


Edmund Burke echoed this sentiment: 


Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their 
disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites. 


The earlier statement, “It’s too big and there is nothing we can do to stop 
it” is the thoroughly selfish approach towards today’s problems. Whether or 
not it can be stopped is irrelevant; simply put, morality demands that we do 
the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, not because we 
might fail or be denied some personal gain. 


In short, resistance to evil, evildoing and evildoers should be a moral 
imperative regardless of personal or societal obstacles. In short, it is never 
wrong to do the right thing. 


Thinking back to 1978-1981, very few, if any, would have imagined or 
approved of the future we have today. When warned of this possibility, they 
did nothing to resist it. If they had tried and failed, there would be no blame, 
but failing to try is a failure of our basic sense of morality. To reiterate, 
responsible and selfless Americans act because it is the right thing to do, and 
this is the challenge before us. 


But, there is another aspect of our collective failure that must be faced. 
There have been many thousands of selfless patriots over the years who 
have worked tirelessly to stem the tide of America’s decline. They have 
given of their time and money, some at great personal cost, to fight against 
the forces of darkness that would destroy America. However, this begs the 
question: Given their great effort, why is America worse off today than ever 
before? 


Since this writer has been both an observer and participant for over 40 
years, my stark observation is that we have been fighting the wrong enemy. 
We have been outsmarted by a clever enemy to draw us into meaningless 
fights while they continue on unseen and unopposed. This enemy has waged 
war according to the timeless principles of the ancient Chinese General Sun 
Tzu who penned The Art of War over 2,500 years ago. The evidence and 
cause of our failure is deduced from this exhortation: 


If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you 


will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, 


you will succumb in every battle.?2 


At the very least, this means we have not adequately known the enemy 
and in some cases, we have not known ourselves. But, the enemy has known 
us and created a successful strategy against us: 


Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any 
fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he 
overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. With 
his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, 
without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method 
of attacking by stratagem. [emphasis added] 


Could it be that Richard Gardner was thinking about this in 1974 when he 
wrote, 


The ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up 
rather than from the top down..., an end run around national 
sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more 


than the old-fashioned frontal assault... 2 [emphasis added] 


What is Effective Resistance? 


American liberty and freedom have never been under such a sustained 
assault politically, economically and socially. The very fabric of our nation 
is being torn apart and many opposing groups seem to be irreconcilable. 
While a national approach to stopping this battle was appropriate in the 
1970s, it is wholly inappropriate today. Why? Because Sustainable 
Development was just a plan that had been conceived but not yet birthed. 
When the United Nations’ Agenda 21 was revealed in 1992, a combination 
of national and state-level resistance might have been sufficient to scuttle 
the operation, but alas, America missed that opportunity as well. 


In the 26 years since 1992, the policies of Sustainable Development, 
Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda have taken root in every 
local community in America. As we have already seen, this assault on local 
communities bypassed national and state barriers under the mantra “Think 
global, act local.” In addition, regional governance organizations? have 
quietly usurped sovereignty from cities and counties for the specific reason 
to implement these policies outside the purview of duly elected 
representatives. 


This has moved the battle line down to our own local communities, 
where personal and local action offers the only possibility for effective 
pushback. The Federal government is not in any position to clean up your 


community and neither is your state government. Thus, it is up to local 
citizens to take charge in their own communities if there is to be any 
effective resistance. In a broad sense, this implies a gargantuan movement. 
In the local sense, any group of dedicated citizens can achieve tangible 
results right where they are, but only if they follow the shrewd principles of 
The Art of War: 


e Know your enemy - e.g., do your homework, research 
and thorough investigation before you lift a finger to 
engage. 

e Make correct self-assessment - “Carefully compare the 
opposing army with your own, so that you may know 
where strength is superabundant and where it is 
deficient "4 

e Create a strategy - “All men can see the tactics whereby I 
conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which 
victory is evolved.” 

e Keep your mouth shut! - “O divine art of subtlety and 
secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through 
you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in 
our hands.’”#° Everything you say on any public social 
media platform is immediately known by your opponents! 

e Then Just do it! - “Let your plans be dark and 
impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a 
thunderbolt. ”27 


After finding some like-minded people to work with, make a general 
survey of your entire community. Note all agencies and boards (education, 
water, fire, law enforcement, etc.), leaders, locations, meetings, contact 
information and websites. Make a list of any and all initiatives that you can 
spot, their purpose, progress and people involved. Make an assessment of 
every person you encounter in order to locate some who might be favorable 
to your cause or position. 


Next, pick a couple of upcoming local meetings to attend and just go to 
find out what they are like. Simply observe, don’t speak. Watch the 
personalities, pick up on strategies or tactics used, listen for hidden agendas, 
note the bosses and the followers. Also note audience members and any role 
they might be playing. 


If you do these few things, you will be ready to choose an area of 
involvement. 


Tools that help 


Meeting with your group frequently and in person is essential to any 
action plan. Don’t meet in public, but rather in someone’s home or office. 
Keep it private. 


Electronic communication is necessary to coordinate certain things, but 
let’s use our head here. Don’t ever use Gmail, Facebook, Twitter or other 
public utilities. Don’t make phone calls on open carriers that can be 
surveilled. In place of those, here are some excellent replacement tools. 


Secure email - Check out Proton Mail (ProtonMail.com), StartMail 
(StartMail.com) and HushMail (HushMail.com) for starters. They all have 
secure, end-to-end encryption and nobody can read your email except the 
intended recipients. If messages are stored on a server, they are still fully 
encrypted and unreadable. 


Text Messaging and Phone Calls - Signal (Signal.org) is the only 
encrypted chat and phone service endorsed by Edward Snowden. There are 
free Apps that work on any smartphone as well as on your computer. Signal 
never stores text messages on a server, but rather encrypts and delivers every 
message directly to the addressee. Furthermore, you can make fully- 
encrypted, end-to-end phone calls to other Signal users; this means no 
eavesdropping and no offline storage. Encrypted phone calls are critical 
considering that every major carrier can store and transcribe your phone 
calls. Other encrypted apps include SilentPhone (SilentCircle.com), and 
BBM (bbm.com); yes, this is BlackBerry Messenger! 


Browsing - Use only a secure browser that does not save the history of 
sites you visit. When searching, do not use a search engine that saves your 
searches. Safe search engines include DuckDuckGo.com and StartPage.com. 
Safe browsers are Opera.com, Brave.com and EpicBrowser.com. The latter 
two include free access to a Virtual Private Network for even more privacy. 


Social media - Don’t say anything on Facebook, Twitter, Google, 
Instagram, etc. Professional analytics companies use sophisticated data 
mining algorithms to know everything about you... and they eagerly sell 
your data to anyone who will pay. The less you say, the better, but never 
reveal anything about your strategies, fellow activists, etc. However, given 
the demonstrated value of social media and its potential for teamwork and 
collaboration, we have created an alternative private and encrypted social 
media platform called LocalActivist (LocalActivist.org). It is ONLY for 
local activists or those who are ready to step up to the plate to take action. 
New members are carefully screened and 100 percent of the site is encrypted 
and protected on private servers. If you create Groups on LocalActivist, you 


can invite your team to join and then exchange messages, files, links, events, 
pictures, etc., without fear of data-mining or snoops. 


Success Stories From the Front Lines 


You will never hear of any local activist success stories in the mainstream 
media because all such stories are automatically embargoed (i.e., spiked). 
But can you imagine that there are such success stories out there? 


In Great Britain, citizens prevailed in court to override the Gateshead 
Council’s use of fraudulent and incorrect data upon which to make decisions 
about 5G in that community. The judge concluded, “The public has a right 
to know.”28 


In the sleepy community of Santa Maria Tonantzintla, Mexico, local 
citizens got wind of a Smart City makeover that would literally change the 
nature of their town. The citizens organized and after finding flaws in the 


permitting process, they told the unwanted planners to get out of town.” 


In Hesperia, California, local activists went after Agenda 21 policies and 
ultimately got a 5 to 0 vote of the City Council to overturn and rescind the 
Countywide Vision statement that had been endorsed in 2011. This was a 
major undertaking by local citizens, but through patience and persistence 
they prevailed and delivered a major setback to California’s Smart City 


planners.” 


Mill Valley is a wealthy city of 14,000 just north of San Francisco, 
California. Citizens sent 145 pieces of correspondence voicing their 
opposition to the proposed implementation of 5G, citing health and safety 
concerns. The City Council voted unanimously to block 5G deployment of 


5G wireless towers in the city’s residential areas. 


In Arizona, a pilot program for vaccine education was completely 
scuttled by just 120 individuals and parents. The spokesman for the Arizona 
Department of Health Services, Brenda Jones, said afterward, “We're so 
sorry we couldn't make a go of this — strong forces against us." Strong 
forces? Indeed! The power of local citizens is immense when focused and 
used wisely. 


Note that all of these victories are within 90 days of the publication of 
this book! There were many more just like them. In each case, only a few 
local citizen activists made the difference. Patience and persistence paid off. 


In short, these victories are very compelling because if they can do it, so 
can you! Resistance is never futile. 


228 Inscribed on the statue at the right side of the main entrance to the National Archives of the United States, 
Washington, D.C. 


229 Note: The “Reagan will save us” mentality of the 1980s has been replaced with “Trump will save us”. 
230 Sun-tzu, and Samuel B. Griffith, The Art of War, [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964], p.11. 

231 Ibid., p. 9. 

232 Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order, Foreign Affairs, April 1974. 


233 Note: this includes Councils of Governments (COGS), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS) and 
Smart Regions. 





234 Ibid., p. 22. 
235 Ibid., p. 23. 
236 Ibid., p.20. 
37 Ibid., p. 27. 


238 SmombieGate, “Britain’s First 5G Court Case And The People Won”, October 10, 2018. 
239 The Guardian, “The Mexican Town That Refused To Become A Smart City”, October 16, 2018. 


240 iAgenda 21, “Hesperia, California: 5 — 0 Victory to Rescind the San Bernardino County Countywide Vision 
Achieved”, October 3, 2018. 


241 TechCrunch, “Bay Area city blocks SG deployments over cancer concerns”, September 30, 2018. 


242 AZ Central, “Arizona cancels vaccine program after backlash from parents who don't vaccinate”, October 18, 
2018. 


12 CONCLUSION 


Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, 
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. 
- Ecclesiastes 8:11 


he ebb and flow of history is never a straight line. If this book 

has presented too much of a linear explanation of the way things 

are, how we arrived to this point, and why, then we must temper our 

understanding with the complexity of human existence. The world has many 

lines of demarcation that can lead to conflict; some cultures are radically 

different and will not mix well; some political systems are irreconcilable 

with others; some economic realities cannot be reconciled. Most 

importantly, the temperament of man is unpredictable, leading some to be 
peaceable, some to fight, some to steal and others to kill. 


All of these forces move forward while colliding, intermixing and 
influencing each other, like a mesmerizing swirl of bright paint poured onto 
the artist’s canvas. It may appear as chaos, as Richard Gardner suggested 
with his “booming, buzzing reality” comment. 


This complexity is what makes it impossible to clearly foresee the future 
in great detail, but at any given moment we are well suited to identify and 
examine major trends to see what direction we are headed, at what speed 
and who is trying to steer the ship. Some men have done very well at this, 
like Aldous Huxley in Brave New World or George Orwell in Nineteen 
Eighty-Four. Huxley painted a scientific dictatorship that relied on pleasure 
to control the citizenry; Orwell used pain. Were both wrong? No, but neither 
were they 100 percent right. However, people today can read both books and 
clearly see that they had a lot of things right. 


The spirit of this book is to paint a larger picture than you might be used 
to looking at. It is to raise your elevation so that you can see a broader 
horizon. It is to reveal mega-trends along with the history of what started 
and what drives them on. 


Throughout history, every generation of man has had to struggle through 
pretty much the same dilemma. If they didn’t like their present conditions, 
they had to figure out ways to improve their lot. Worse, if they didn’t like 
the future they saw coming, they had to take steps to try and change it. Some 
generations succeeded. Others failed miserably. 


This book exposes many trends, forces, organizations and people that are 
steering the world toward scientific dictatorship and neo-Feudalism. Most of 
mankind will ignorantly follow the flow, waking up in a very bad place one 


day and wondering how they got there. 


Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) was creepy but brilliant, looking 
straight into the face of budding Technocracy that resided at Columbia 
University in the same year. He simply let his mind run with it, 
extrapolating ideas to their logical ends. Few people know that Huxley 
followed up in 1958 with an non-fiction update appropriately called Brave 
New World Revisited. The 28 year span between these two books gave 
Huxley plenty of time to rethink his analysis, predictions and conclusions. 
What started as fiction in 1932 was morphing into reality by 1958. This 
seemed to somewhat unnerve him as he wrote: 


The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects 
with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. 
Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In 
the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of 
the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The 
methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely 
inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work -- 
with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their 
servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no 
good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be 


overthrown.733 [emphasis added] 


In other words, he not only saw scientific dictatorship more clearly but 
also realized that if it ever were to become firmly established, it would be 
“game over” for humanity, without hope for an overthrow. 


On this point, I agree with Huxley. 


It took hundreds of years to develop the concepts of freedom and liberty 
that resulted in the founding of America in 1776. Scientific Dictatorship is 
the polar opposite of such freedom and liberty, and yet it can potentially be 
cemented into place within a few decades. If Technocracy succeeds, it could 
take hundreds of additional years to relight the flame. It is for this reason 
that the stakes are so astronomically high in how we respond to this clear 
and present danger. 


I must state neither Aldous Huxley or his brother, Julian, were heroes of 
mine. They were globalists, humanists, eugenicists and atheists. Julian 
Huxley was the first Director of UNESCO, president of the British 
Humanist Association and a founding member of the World Wildlife fund; 
he was also a long-time member of the British Eugenics Society and served 
as its president from 1959-1962. Indeed, the Huxleys contributed more to 
our modern condition than most other global elitists of their day. 


Having said that, Huxley’s closing paragraph in Revisited can be taken 
with a grain of salt. His moral being might have been radically different than 
our own, but we still might agree with his prescient conclusion, at least for 
our own purposes: 


Meanwhile there is still some freedom left in the world. Many young 
people, it is true, do not seem to value freedom. But some of us still 
believe that, without freedom, human beings cannot become fully 
human and that freedom is therefore supremely valuable. Perhaps the 
forces that now menace freedom are too strong to be resisted for very 


long. It is still our duty to do whatever we can to resist them.7=# 


We must also close the loop on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, Between 
Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. Remember that it was 
this 1970 book that inspired industrialist/banker David Rockefeller to invite 
Brzezinski to become a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 
where he also served as the first Executive Director. An academic to the 
core, nothing Brzezinski ever wrote was easy to understand, but there are a 
few noteworthy thoughts that clearly stand out. 


Brzezinski had much to say about revolutionary movements and forces. 
The fact that he wrote about being between two different ages means that 
there were actually three ages in view: the one in the middle and the ones on 
either end. When he wrote the book, it was during the middle age and he 
was looking forward to the final Technetronic Era sometime in the future. 
Now, that future has arrived and we can judge how well he pegged it. 


Although he explored multiple scenarios, one picked up on the “gradual 
appearance of a more controlled and directed society”= when he wrote: 


Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political 
power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. 
Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite 
would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest 
modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society 
under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the 
scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be 


reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.*3 


This was the start of a much broader exploration of what the 
Technetronic era could look like: 


Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, 
and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would 
be the stepping stones in the piecemeal transformation of the United 


States into a highly controlled society. 


His “piecemeal transformation” suspiciously echoes the sentiment of 
Richard Gardner’s “end run around national sovereignty”, but goes further 
to refine the endgame of a “highly controlled society.” However, the 
similarities don’t end here. 


Brzezinski was blunt about his disdain for America and its Constitution 
when he wrote: 


The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of 
Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional 
convention to re-examine the nation’s formal institutional 
framework, Either 1976 or 1989 - the two-hundredth anniversary of 
the Constitution - could serve as a suitable target date for culminating 
a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements, the 
workings of the representative process, and the desirability of 
initiating various European regionalization reforms and of 
streamlining the administrative structure. More important still, either 
date would provide a suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of 
modern democracy.= [emphasis added] 


The fact that Brzezinski made this call for a constitutional convention in 
1970 should provide great alarm to all those who are demanding such a 
convention today!? 


Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political 
innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable 
as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop 
incrementally and less overtly. Nonetheless, its eventual scope may be 
far-reaching, especially as the political process gradually assimilates 
scientific-technological change... The trend toward more coordination 
but less centralization would be in keeping with the American tradition 
of blurring sharp distinctions between public and_ private 


institutions.~” [emphasis added] 


When examining Richard Gardner’s exact phrase, one can sense just how 
positionally aligned he was to Brzezinski: 


It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” but an end-run 
around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will 
accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.*# 


[emphasis added] 


All other things, forces and factors aside, there have been several 
touchstones that always keep Trilateral-style globalization, aka Technocracy 
and Sustainable Development, on track. Like a pool table in chaos when the 
first rack of balls is broken with a hard-hit cue ball, the players never lose 


sight that the goal is to get every ball into one of the designated pockets. 
Some of these bedrock goals include: 


e Erase America’s Constitutional Republic form of 
government - it stands in the way of “progress”. 

e Take all land and water resources away from individuals 
and governments - this is the source of all wealth on earth, 
regardless of monetary systems. 

e Crush Capitalism and Free Enterprise once and for all - 
Capitalism is incompatible with Sustainable Development 
and puts too much wealth in the hands of citizens. 

e Establish energy as the core economic mediator - it is the 
lifeblood of Sustainable Development. 

e Always use available science and technology to 
accomplish the above - it’s the easiest and quickest way to 
fool and control the maximum number of people. 

e Use incremental transformations (end-runs) rather than 
frontal attacks - this minimizes any possible resistance. 


Stress to Distress 


Everyone has an explanation as to why society is trending toward chaos. 
Intolerance, hatred, violence, racial tensions, crime and fear are the new 
normal, and people are compulsively looking to one group or another to 
blame. However, their horizon is too low. Over the last 50 years, the global 
elite have been very masterful at posing, orchestrating and then inflaming 
conflicts to drive people to ground level where they can only see the 
immediate “enemy”. As long as a person has a suitable and plausible enemy 
to lash out toward, there will be no further effort to locate the real enemy. 


When David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski started the Trilateral 
Commission in 1973, they were very strategic about covering their tracks. 
President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter Mondale were both 
members of the Trilateral Commission - Democrats, right? Then Ronald 
Reagan chose George H.W. Bush. - Republicans, right? Both Bill Clinton 
and Vice president Al Gore were Trilaterals. Oops, back to Democrats, 
right? Then George W. Bush chose his Vice President in Dick Cheney. 
President Obama, a Democrat, was surrounded by members of the Trilateral 
Commission. So, who is the enemy? Democrat or Republican? 


Obviously, the answer is neither. Both parties have been played as 
stooges for a public audience looking for someone to blame for their woes. 
Regardless of who gets elected, it’s just business as usual for the elite 
handlers who have been morphing the economic system into Technocracy. 


Why is society nearing chaos? Because it is the natural and obvious 
outcome of this transformation. Richard Gardner saw it coming in 1974 as a 
“booming, buzzing confusion”. 


When education has been horrifically dumbed down for multiple 
generations so that critical thinking is virtually impossible, when the 
traditional rule of law no longer provides consistent justice, when the 
economic system no longer produces wealth for the middle class, stripping 
them of their future, then what would you expect people to do? When they 
have been told the world is dying because of global warming and its their 
fault, when parents are repeatedly told that: 


Too many people on the bus from the airport 
Too many holes in the crust of the earth 


The planet groans 


Every time it registers another birth*® 


Biblical morality is a distant memory with the banning of prayer in public 
schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from all civic 
institutions. Yet, these were the original guideposts given to properly run 
our Constitutional Republic. 


In short, people are disillusioned, disoriented, hopeless and very angry. 
Worse, they have been left with no outlet to resolve their anger, and 
unresolved anger invariably gives way to outright rage. 


Unfortunately, this is the state of society today, and no amount of 
political wrangling will make one whit of difference. The only way to 
restore law and order in America is to put the Constitutional Republic back 
in place, electing leaders who will actually obey their oath of office to 
“support and defend” it. As discussed in the previous chapter, this is a long- 
shot from the top down, but a real possibility from the bottom up. 


Rockefeller: The Fountainhead 


I have expended a lot of effort in an attempt to expose the mind of 
Technocracy and its perpetrators. Unless you can “get inside their heads”, 
you really cannot understand what makes them tick. In that vein, there are 
two more things to say about the late David Rockefeller who gave us the 
Trilateral Commission, and Technocracy under the label of Sustainable 
Development. While many viewed him as a benevolent philanthropist, they 
could not have been farther from the truth. 


The idea for the Trilateral Commission was originally conceived in 1972 
at a Bilderberg meeting in Europe. It was founded the next year and 
Rockefeller invited several media giants (mostly those who were already 


attending Bilderberg meetings) into membership and then promptly gave 
them a gag order to not report whatever they would hear. (Yes, this was 
censorship back in 1973!) These included the head of CBS, Chicago Sun- 
Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Media General, Times-Mirror, 
New York Times, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Dow Jones, Wall 
Street Journal and others.“8 Collectively, these were the power elite of the 
media world and what they would write about would determine what 
eventually got into the history books 25 years later. Their conspicuous 
silence was finally praised by Rockefeller himself when he addressed the 
1991 Bilderberg gathering: 


We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time 
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended 
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 
forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan 
for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity 
during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and 
prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational 
sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely 
preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past 


centuries. 2# 


In short, Rockefeller despised the Western world and especially 
America’s Constitutional Republic. Like a clever Indian in an old Tom Mix 
western, he methodically covered his tracks every inch of the way so that he 
could not be tracked. It is no wonder that the American people never figured 
out what was really happening behind the scenes. For all those who blew the 
whistle on their fraudulent schemes, like Antony Sutton and myself, we 
were alternatively branded as the lunatic fringe on the right or the left, while 
always positioning Trilaterals in the moderate middle. 


Ten years later at the age of 87, Rockefeller felt the need to write an auto- 
biography, which he called Memoirs. It was a rambling account of his life, 
places he went, stories about family, things he influenced, etc. It was also a 
blunt stick-a-finger-in-your-eye admission of his role in yanking America 
right out from under us: 


Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal 
working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing 
my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others 
around the world to build a more integrated global political and 
economic structure - One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I 


stand guilty, and I am proud of it.2 


Think back to the end of Chapter 6 and the story of Dr. William 


Livingston, aka William Avery Rockefeller, Sr. This was the great 
grandfather of David Rockefeller. Did the fruit fall far from the tree? 
Hardly. Both were lying deceivers, con men and hucksters. David only 
played his part with a lot more money at his disposal, with which he 
purchased legitimacy, stature and respect; otherwise, they are two peas in 
the same pod. Although character-equivalent, they had two different props: 
William sold a cancer cure consisting of oil and laxative; David promoted 
global economic domination in the name of Sustainable Development and 
environmentalism. 


As to the rest of the myriad actors on the Rockefeller stage, consisting of 
multinational corporations, the Sustainable Develop-ment hucksters at the 
United Nations, hundreds of NGOs, politicians, lobbyists and radical 
environmentalists, it is no mystery why deception and fraud run amok: as 
the ancient proverb states, “The fish stinks from the head.” With Rockefeller 
as the grand mentor, who would voluntarily choose to take the high road of 
honesty, ethics and morality? 


Lastly, I would point out that Rockefeller purposely misled with his “One 
World” comment. While it is definitely economic in nature because 
Technocracy and Sustainable Development are, in fact, an alternative 
economic system designed to replace Capitalism and Free Enterprise, 
hinting at a political structure is wrong. Governance does not necessarily 
imply government. A fully-managed economic system demands managerial 
control, but this can be done with advanced technology instead of 
politicians. This has been duly noted by experts like Dr. Parag Khanna, 
author of the globalist book, Connectography: 


We are building the global society without a global leader. Global 
order is no longer something that can be dictated or controlled from 
the top down. Globalization itself is the order.“ [emphasis added] 


The Hard Road 


Since 1973, America has indeed been placed on a hard road to world 
order. It was not our choice, but we have felt the wrenching transformation 
every step of the way. Our entire nation has been saturated with UN policies 
of Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda, all of which are in 
support of destroying Capitalism and Free Enterprise for the sake of 
Sustainable Development and Technocracy. 


Property rights have been drastically eroded. Income and wealth 
inequality has become exaggerated to the extreme while the middle class has 
all but vanished. Political institutions are dysfunctional and ineffective. The 
social culture has been radically transformed into one of anger, hatred and 
bitterness. Ignorance of history has left us as a nation without a past. 


Everything from our personal data to our traditional government institutions 
have been weaponized against us. Our American culture has converted to 
multi-culturalism with massive immigration. The traditional Rule of Law 
has been shredded. And on and on it goes. The America we have today is 
clearly not the America we had in 1973, and the downhill progression had 
nothing to do with natural evolution. An argument has been made that 
Humpty Dumpty (America) was already sitting on the wall back then, to 
which this writer responds, “Humpty was pushed.” 


The reader can judge for himself if Richard Gardner’s Hard Road to 
World Order was accurate or not: 


It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” but an end-run 
around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will 


accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. 


Final Thoughts 


In America, the first line of defence against attacks on our Constitution is 
found in the First Amendment, which states, 


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 


Each item mentioned here implies direct action: the exercise of religion, 
speaking your mind, writing words on a page, assembling together and 
petitioning the government. If you are not doing one or more of these, then it 
is just so much ink on a page. Those con artists who would completely 
destroy the Constitution know full well that it will fall like a house of cards 
if the First Amendment can be effectively nullified. 


This is why we have been browbeaten into silence with political 
correctness, label lynching and fear. This is why censorship has been 
weaponized to squash freedom of the press. This is why those who would 
protest are excoriated and intimidated by threats of physical violence. This is 
why the channels for petitioning the government have been blockaded. All 
combined, these attacks have created a societal pressure cooker that is going 
to explode if we do not stand up to the attacks and reclaim the high ground 
of the First Amendment, but this cannot be done without action. 


It was for this very reason that this writer established Citizens for Free 
Speech as a non-profit and tax-exempt organization to defend and support 
the First Amendment and to encourage local action consistent with its 
principles. Every American has these inherent rights if they would only 
stand up to exercise them. The marketplace of ideas is overwhelmed with a 


plethora of anti-American rhetoric: Socialism, Communism, Sustainable 
Development, label-lynching and everything in between. Is there any 
compelling reason that any of these should win the battle for the soul of 
America? This writer thinks not, and suggests that most Americans would 
agree. 


There is no one to challenge us but ourselves, and if we fail to do so, we 
can be certain of the eventual outcome. You are welcome to join and 
participate with Citizens for Free Speech to make your voice heard. 


www.CitizensForFreeSpeech.org 


233 Aldous Huxley, Brave New World REvisited, [1958, Harper & Brothers], p. 147. 


236 Ibid. p. 253. 
237 Ibid. 
38 Ibid., p. 259. 


239 Note: Trilateral Commission member Henry Kissinger likewise called for a constitutional convention in the 
early 1970s. 











ie) 
i 
i 


id., p. 260. 


241 Foreign Affairs, Vol. 52, Number 3, 1974, pp 557-576. 


242 United Nations, Rescue Mission Planet Earth: A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, 1994, p. 32. (Original lyrics 
and song by Paul Simon, Born At The Right Time, 1990.) 


243 Sutton, Antony C. and Patrick M. Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington, Vol. 1., [August Corporation, 1979], p. 
37-38. 


244 Minutes, Lectures Francaises, Hilaire du Berrier Report, July/August, 1991. 
245 David Rockefeller, Memoirs, [Random House, 2002], p. 406. 


246 Khanna, Parag, Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization (Kindle Locations 528-530). 
Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 





247 Foreign Affairs, Vol. 52, Number 3, 1974, pp 557-576.. 


This page left intentionally blank 


Al HABITAT III 
NEW URBAN AGENDA 


Draft outcome document for adoption in Quito 
10 September 2016 


QUITO DECLARATION ON SUSTAINABLE CITIES 
AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS FOR ALL 


1. We, the Heads of State and Government, Ministers and High 
Representatives, have gathered at the United Nations Conference on 
Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat II) from 17 to 20 
October 2016 in Quito, Ecuador, with the participation of sub-national and 
local governments, parliamentarians, civil society, indigenous peoples and 
local communities, the private sector, professionals and practitioners, the 
scientific and academic community, and other relevant stakeholders, to 
adopt a New Urban Agenda. 


2. By 2050 the world urban population is expected to nearly double, 
making urbanization one of the 21st century’s most transformative trends. 
As the population, economic activities, social and cultural interactions, as 
well as environmental and humanitarian impacts, are increasingly 
concentrated in cities, this poses massive sustainability challenges in terms 
of housing, infrastructure, basic services, food security, health, education, 
decent jobs, safety, and natural resources, among others. 


3. Since the United Nations Conferences on Human Settlements in 
Vancouver in 1976 and in Istanbul in 1996, and the adoption of the 
Millennium Development Goals in 2000, we have seen improvements in the 
quality of life of millions of urban inhabitants, including slum and informal 
settlement dwellers. However, the persistence of multiple forms of poverty, 
growing inequalities, and environmental degradation, remain among the 
major obstacles to sustainable development worldwide, with social and 
economic exclusion and spatial segregation often an irrefutable reality in 
cities and human settlements. 


4. We are still far from adequately addressing these and other existing 
and emerging challenges; and there is a need to take advantage of the 
opportunities of urbanization as an engine of sustained and inclusive 


economic growth, social and cultural development, and environmental 
protection, and of its potential contributions to the achievement of 
transformative and sustainable development. 


5. By readdressing the way cities and human settlements are planned, 
designed, financed, developed, governed, and managed, the New Urban 
Agenda will help to end poverty and hunger in all its forms and dimensions, 
reduce inequalities, promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic 
growth, achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and 
girls, in order to fully harness their vital contribution to sustainable 
development, improve human health and well-being, as well as foster 
resilience and protect the environment. 


6. We take full account of the milestone achievements in the course of the 
year 2015, in particular the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 
including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Addis Ababa 
Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for 
Development, the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), the Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, the Vienna Programme 
of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries for the Decade 2014-2024, 
the Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action 
(SAMOA) Pathway and the Istanbul Programme of Action for the Least 
Developed Countries for the Decade 2011-2020. We also take account of the 
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the World Summit on 
Sustainable Development, the World Summit for Social Development, the 
International Conference on Population and Development Programme of 
Action, the Beijing Platform for Action, and the United Nations Conference 
on Sustainable Development, and the follow up to these conferences. 


7. While recognizing that it did not have an intergovernmental agreed 
outcome, we take note of the World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 in 
Istanbul. 


8. We acknowledge the contributions of national governments, as well as 
the contributions of sub-national and local governments, in the definition of 
the New Urban Agenda and take note of the second World Assembly of 
Local and Regional Governments. 


9. This New Urban Agenda reaffirms our global commitment to 
sustainable urban development as a critical step for realizing sustainable 
development in an integrated and coordinated manner at global, regional, 
national, sub-national, and local levels, with the participation of all relevant 
actors. The implementation of 2 the New Urban Agenda contributes to the 
implementation and localization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 


Development in an integrated manner, and to the achievement of the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets, including SDG 11 of 
making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and 
sustainable. 


10. The New Urban Agenda acknowledges that culture and cultural 
diversity are sources of enrichment for humankind and provides an 
important contribution to the sustainable development of cities, human 
settlements, and citizens, empowering them to play an active and unique 
role in development initiatives; and further recognizes that culture should be 
taken into account in the promotion and implementation of new sustainable 
consumption and production patterns that contribute to the responsible use 
of resources and address the adverse impact of climate change. 


Our shared vision 


11. We share a vision of cities for all, referring to the equal use and 
enjoyment of cities and human settlements, seeking to promote inclusivity 
and ensure that all inhabitants, of present and future generations, without 
discrimination of any kind, are able to inhabit and produce just, safe, 
healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient, and sustainable cities and human 
settlements, to foster prosperity and quality of life for all. We note the 
efforts of some national and local governments to enshrine this vision, 
referred to as right to the city, in their legislations, political declarations and 
charters. 


12. We aim to achieve cities and human settlements where all persons are 
able to enjoy equal rights and opportunities, as well as their fundamental 
freedoms, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United 
Nations, including full respect for international law. In this regard, the New 
Urban Agenda is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 
international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration, and the 
2005 World Summit Outcome. It is informed by other instruments such as 
the Declaration on the Right to Development. 


13. We envisage cities and human settlements that: 


(a) fulfill their social function, including the social and ecological 
function of land, with a view to progressively achieve the full realization of 
the right to adequate housing, as a component of the right to an adequate 
standard of living, without discrimination, universal access to safe and 
affordable drinking water and sanitation, as well as equal access for all to 
public goods and quality services in areas such as food security and 
nutrition, health, education, infrastructure, mobility and transportation, 
energy, air quality, and livelihoods; 


(b) are participatory, promote civic engagement, engender a sense of 
belonging and ownership among all their inhabitants, prioritize safe, 
inclusive, accessible, green, and quality public spaces, friendly for families, 
enhance social and intergenerational interactions, cultural expressions, and 
political participation, as appropriate, and foster social cohesion, inclusion, 
and safety in peaceful and pluralistic societies, where the needs of all 
inhabitants are met, recognizing the specific needs of those in vulnerable 
situations; 


(c) achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, ensuring 
women’s full and effective participation and equal rights in all fields and in 
leadership at all levels of decision-making, and by ensuring decent work and 
equal pay for equal work, or work of equal value for all women, as well as 
preventing and eliminating all forms of discrimination, violence, and 
harassment against women and girls in private and public spaces; 


(d) meet the challenges and opportunities of present and future sustained, 
inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, leveraging urbanization for 
structural transformation, high productivity, valueadded activities, and 
resource efficiency, harnessing local economies, taking note of the 
contribution of the informal economy while supporting a sustainable 
transition to the formal economy; 


(e) fulfill their territorial functions across administrative boundaries, and 
act as hubs and drivers for balanced sustainable and integrated urban and 
territorial development at all levels; 3 


(f) promote age- and gender-responsive planning and investment for 
sustainable, safe, and accessible urban mobility for all and resource efficient 
transport systems for passengers and freight, effectively linking people, 
places, goods, services, and economic opportunities; 


(g) adopt and implement disaster risk reduction and management, reduce 
vulnerability, build resilience and responsiveness to natural and man-made 
hazards, and foster mitigation and adaptation to climate change; 


(h) protect, conserve, restore, and promote their ecosystems, water, 
natural habitats, and biodiversity, minimize their environmental impact, and 
change to sustainable consumption and production patterns. 


Our Principles and Commitments 


14. To achieve our vision, we resolve to adopt a New Urban Agenda 
guided by the following interlinked principles: 


(a) Leave no one behind, by ending poverty in all its forms and 
dimensions, including the eradication of extreme poverty, by ensuring equal 


rights and opportunities, socio-economic and cultural diversity, integration 
in the urban space, enhancing liveability, education, food security and 
nutrition, health and well-being; including by ending the epidemics of 
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, promoting safety and _ eliminating 
discrimination and all forms of violence; ensuring public participation 
providing safe and equal access for all; and providing equal access for all to 
physical and social infrastructure and basic services as well as adequate and 
affordable housing. 


(b) Sustainable and inclusive urban economies, by leveraging the 
agglomeration benefits of well-planned urbanization, high productivity, 
competitiveness, and innovation; promoting full and productive employment 
and decent work for all, ensuring decent job creation and equal access for all 
to economic and productive resources and opportunities; preventing land 
speculation; and promoting secure land tenure and managing urban 
shrinking where appropriate. 


(c) Environmental sustainability, by promoting clean energy, sustainable 
use of land and resources in urban development as well as protecting 
ecosystems and biodiversity, including adopting healthy lifestyles in 
harmony with nature; promoting sustainable consumption and production 
patterns; building urban resilience; reducing disaster risks; and mitigating 
and adapting to climate change. 


15. We commit to work towards an urban paradigm shift for a New 
Urban Agenda that will: 


(a) readdress the way we plan, finance, develop, govern, and manage 
cities and human settlements, recognizing sustainable urban and territorial 
development as essential to the achievement of sustainable development and 
prosperity for all; 


(b) recognize the leading role of national governments, as appropriate, in 
the definition and implementation of inclusive and effective urban policies 
and legislation for sustainable urban development, and the equally important 
contributions of sub-national and local governments, as well as civil society 
and other relevant stakeholders, in a transparent and accountable manner; 


(c) adopt sustainable, people-centered, age- and gender-responsive and 
integrated approaches to urban and territorial development by implementing 
policies, strategies, capacity development, and actions at all levels, based on 
fundamental drivers of change including: 


i. developing and implementing urban policies at the appropriate level 
including within local-national and multi-stakeholder partnerships, building 
integrated systems of cities and human settlements, promoting cooperation 
among all levels of government to enable them to achieve sustainable 


integrated urban development; 


ii. strengthening urban governance, with sound institutions and 
mechanisms that empower and include urban stakeholders, as well as 
appropriate checks and balances, providing predictability and coherence in 
the urban development plans to enable social 4 inclusion, sustained, 
inclusive, and sustainable economic growth and environmental protection; 


ili. reinvigorating long-term and integrated urban and territorial planning 
and design in order to optimize the spatial dimension of the urban form and 
to deliver the positive outcomes of urbanization; 


iv. supporting effective, innovative, and _ sustainable financing 
frameworks and instruments, enabling strengthened municipal finance and 
local fiscal systems in order to create, sustain, and share the value generated 
by sustainable urban development in an inclusive manner. 


Call for Action 


16. While the specific circumstances of cities of all sizes, towns, and 
villages vary, we affirm that the New Urban Agenda is universal in scope, 
participatory, and people-centered, protects the planet, and has a long-term 
vision, setting out priorities and actions at the global, regional, national, sub- 
national, and local levels that governments and other relevant stakeholders 
in every country can adopt based on their needs. 


17. We will work to implement this New Urban Agenda within our own 
countries and at the regional and global levels, taking into account different 
national realities, capacities, and levels of development, and respecting 
national legislations and practices, as well as policies and priorities. 


18. We reaffirm all of the principles of the Rio Declaration on 
Environment and Development, including, inter alia, the principle of 
common but differentiated responsibilities, as set out in Principle 7 thereof. 


19. We acknowledge that in implementing the New Urban Agenda, 
particular attention should be given to addressing the unique and emerging 
urban development challenges facing all countries, in particular developing 
countries, including African countries, least developed countries, landlocked 
developing countries, and small-island developing States, as well as the 
specific challenges facing the middle income countries. Special attention 
should also be given to countries in situations of conflicts, as well as 
countries and territories under foreign occupation, post-conflict countries, 
and countries affected by natural and manmade disasters. 


20. We recognize the need to give particular attention to addressing 
multiple forms of discrimination faced by, inter alia, women and girls, 
children and youth, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, 


older persons, indigenous peoples and local communities, slum and informal 
settlement dwellers, homeless people, workers, smallholder farmers and 
fishers, refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons, and migrants, 
regardless of migration status. 


21. We urge all national, sub-national, and local governments, as well as 
all relevant stakeholders, in line with national policies and legislation, to 
revitalize, strengthen, and create partnerships, enhancing coordination and 
cooperation to effectively implement the New Urban Agenda and realize our 
shared vision. 


22. We adopt this New Urban Agenda as a collective vision and a 
political commitment to promote and realize sustainable urban development, 
and as a historic opportunity to leverage the key role of cities and human 
settlements as drivers of sustainable development in an increasingly 
urbanized world. 


23. We resolve to implement the New Urban Agenda as a key instrument 


for national, sub-national, and local governments and all relevant 


stakeholders to achieve sustainable urban development. 


241 There are a total of 175 numbered paragraphs in this document. The full document 
can be downloaded https://www.Technocracy.News/New-Urban-Agenda 


A2 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development 


September 2015 


Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere 


1.1 By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, 
currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day 


1.2 By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and 
children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to 
national definitions 


1.3 Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and 
measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage 
of the poor and the vulnerable 


1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and 
the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to 
basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, 
inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial 
services, including microfinance 


1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable 
situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related 
extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and 
disasters 


1.a Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, 
including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide 
adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least 
developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty 
in all its dimensions 


1.b Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and 
international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development 
strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions 
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and 
improved nutrition and promote — sustainable 


agriculture 


2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the 
poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious 
and sufficient food all year round 


2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, 
the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 
years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant 
and lactating women and older persons 


2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small- 
scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family 
farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access 
to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial 
services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm 
employment 


2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement 
resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that 
help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate 
change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that 
progressively improve land and soil quality 


2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and 
farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including 
through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the 
national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair 
and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic 
resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed 


2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international 
cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension 
services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in 
order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in 
particular least developed countries 


2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world 
agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms 
of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent 
effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round 


2.c Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity 
markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market 
information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food 
price volatility 


Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being 
for all at all ages 


3.1 By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 
100,000 live births 


3.2 By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 
years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at 
least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under 5 mortality to at least as 
low as 25 per 1,000 live births 


3.3 By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and 
neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and 
other communicable diseases 


3.4 By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non- 
communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote 
mental health and well-being 


3.5 Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including 
narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol 


3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road 
traffic accidents 


3.7 By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health- 
care services, including for family planning, information and education, and 
the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and 
programmes 


3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk 
protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, 
effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all 


3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from 
hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination 


3.a Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization 
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate 


3.b Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for 
the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect 
developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and 
vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement 
and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to 
the full the provisions in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, 
and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all 


3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, 
development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing 
countries, especially in least developed countries and small island 
developing States 


3.d Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing 
countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and 
global health risks 


Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality 
education and promote lifelong _ learning 
opportunities for all 


4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and 
quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective 
learning outcomes 


4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early 
childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are 
ready for primary education 


4.3 By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable 
and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university 


4.4 By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who 
have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for 
employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship 


4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal 
access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, 
including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in 
vulnerable situations 


4.6 By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, 
both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy 


4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills 
needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, 
through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, 
human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non- 
violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of 
culture’s contribution to sustainable development 


4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and 
gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective 
learning environments for all 


4.b By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships 
available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, 
small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in 
higher education, including vocational training and information and 
communications technology, technical, engineering and _ scientific 
programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries 


4.c By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, 
including through international cooperation for teacher training in 
developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island 
developing States 


Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 


5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls 
everywhere 


5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the 
public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types 
of exploitation 


5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced 
marriage and female genital mutilation 


5.4 Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the 
provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and 
the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family 
as nationally appropriate 


5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal 
opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, 
economic and public life 


5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and 
reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action 
of the International Conference on Population and Development and the 
Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review 
conferences 


5.a Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, 
as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of 
property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance 
with national laws 


5.b Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and 
communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women 


5.c Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for 
the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and 


girls at all levels 


Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable 
management of water and sanitation for all 


6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and 
affordable drinking water for all 


6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and 
hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the 
needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations 


6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating 
dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, 
halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing 
recycling and safe reuse globally 


6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors 
and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address 
water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from 
water scarcity 


6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all 
levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate 


6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including 
mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes 


6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building 
support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities 
and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, 
wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies 


6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in 
improving water and sanitation management 
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, 
sustainable and modern energy for all 


7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern 
energy services 


7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the 
global energy mix 


7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency 


7.a By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to 
clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy 


efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote 
investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology 


7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying 
modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in 
particular least developed countries, small island developing States and 
landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their respective 
programmes of support 


Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable 
economic growth, full and productive employment 
and decent work for all 


8.1 Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national 
circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product 
growth per annum in the least developed countries 


8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through 
diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a 
focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors 


8.3 Promote development-oriented policies that support productive 
activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, 
and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium- 
sized enterprises, including through access to financial services 


8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in 
consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth 
from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10 Year Framework 
of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, with 
developed countries taking the lead 


8.5 By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work 
for all women and men, including for young people and persons with 
disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value 


8.6 By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in 
employment, education or training 


8.7 Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, 
end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and 
elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use 
of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms 


8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working 
environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular 
women migrants, and those in precarious employment 


8.9 By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable 
tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products 


8.10 Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to 
encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services 
for all 


8.a Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular 
least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework for Trade-related Technical Assistance to Least Developed 
Countries 


8.b By 2020, develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth 
employment and implement the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour 
Organization 


Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote 
inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster 
innovation 


9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, 
including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic 
development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and 
equitable access for all 


9.2 Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, 
significantly raise industry’s share of employment and gross domestic 
product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least 
developed countries 


9.3 Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in 
particular in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable 
credit, and their integration into value chains and markets 


9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them 
sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of 
clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with 
all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities 


9.5 Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of 
industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, 
including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the 
number of research and development workers per 1 million people and 
public and private research and development spending 


9.a Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in 
developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and 


technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked 
developing countries and small island developing States 


9.b Support domestic technology development, research and innovation 
in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy 
environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to 
commodities 


9.c Significantly increase access to information and communications 
technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the 
Internet in least developed countries by 2020 


Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among 
countries 


10.1 By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the 
bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national 
average 


10.2 By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political 
inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, 
religion or economic or other status 


10.3 Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, 
including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and 
promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard 


10.4 Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, 
and progressively achieve greater equality 


10.5 Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets 
and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations 


10.6 Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries 
in decision-making in global international economic and _ financial 
institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and 
legitimate institutions 


10.7 Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and 
mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and 
well-managed migration policies 


10.a Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for 
developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance 
with World Trade Organization agreements 


10.b Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, 
including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in 


particular least developed countries, African countries, small island 
developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with 
their national plans and programmes 


10.c By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of 
migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher 
than 5 per cent 


Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, 
safe, resilient and sustainable 


11.1 By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable 
housing and basic services and upgrade slums 


11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and 
sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by 
expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in 
vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older 
persons 


11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and 
capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement 
planning and management in all countries 


11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and 
natural heritage 


11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number 
of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses 
relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including 
water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in 
vulnerable situations 


11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of 
cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and 
other waste management 


11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, 
green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons 
and persons with disabilities 


11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between 
urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional 
development planning 


11.b By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human 
settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans 
towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate 


change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the 
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster 
risk management at all levels 


11.c Support least developed countries, including through financial and 
technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing 
local materials 


Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and 
production patterns 


12.1 Implement the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable 
Consumption and Production Patterns, all countries taking action, with 
developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development 
and capabilities of developing countries 


12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of 
natural resources 


12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and 
consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, 
including post-harvest losses 


12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of 
chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with 
agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, 
water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health 
and the environment 


12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, 
reduction, recycling and reuse 


12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, 
to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into 
their reporting cycle 


12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in 
accordance with national policies and priorities 


12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant 
information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in 
harmony with nature 


12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and 
technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of 
consumption and production 


12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development 


impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture 
and products 


12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful 
consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national 
circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those 
harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, 
taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing 
countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development 
in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities 


* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for 
negotiating the global response to climate change. 


Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change 
and its impacts* 


13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related 
hazards and natural disasters in all countries 


13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies 
and planning 


13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional 
capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and 
early warning 


13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country 
parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to 
a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources 
to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful 
mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and _ fully 
operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as 
possible 


13.6 Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate 
change-related planning and management in least developed countries and 
small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and 
local and marginalized communities 
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, 
seas and marine’ resources for sustainable 
development 


14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all 


kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and 
nutrient pollution 


14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal 
ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening 
their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve 
healthy and productive oceans 


14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including 
through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels 


14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and 
implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks 
in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum 
sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics 


14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, 
consistent with national and international law and based on the best 
available scientific information 


14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which 
contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that 
contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from 
introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective 
special and differential treatment for developing and least developed 
countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization 
fisheries subsidies negotiation 


14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to small island developing 
States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine 
resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, 
aquaculture and tourism 


14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and 
transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental 
Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of 
Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the 
contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing 
countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed 
countries 


14.b Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources 
and markets 


14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their 
resources by implementing international law as reflected in the United 
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides the legal 


framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their 
resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of “The future we want” 


Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use 
of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, 
combat desertification, and halt and reverse land 
degradation and halt biodiversity loss 


15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of 
terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular 
forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under 
international agreements 


15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of 
all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and 
substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally 


15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, 
including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to 
achieve a land degradation-neutral world 


15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including 
their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that 
are essential for sustainable development 


15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of 
natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and 
prevent the extinction of threatened species 


15.6 Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the 
utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such 
resources, as internationally agreed 


15.7 Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected 
species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal 
wildlife products 


15.8 By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and 
significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water 
ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species 


15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national 
and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and 
accounts 


15.a Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all 
sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems 


15.b Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to 
finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to 
developing countries to advance such management, including for 
conservation and reforestation 


15.c Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and 
trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local 
communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities 
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for 
sustainable development, provide access to justice for 
all and build effective, accountable and inclusive 
institutions at all levels 

16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates 
everywhere 


16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against 
and torture of children 


16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and 
ensure equal access to justice for all 


16.4 By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, 
strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of 
organized crime 


16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms 


16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all 
levels 


16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative 
decision-making at all levels 


16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in 
the institutions of global governance 


16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration 


16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental 
freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international 
agreements 


16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through 
international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in 
developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime 


16.6 Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for 


sustainable development 


Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and 
revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable 
Development 


Finance 


17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through 
international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity 
for tax and other revenue collection 


17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development 
assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed 
countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for 
official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and 
0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA 
providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 
per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries 


17.3. Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries 
from multiple sources 


17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability 
through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief 
and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of 
highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress 


17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least 
developed countries 


Technology 


17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and 
international cooperation on and access to science, technology and 
innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, 
including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in 
particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology 
facilitation mechanism 


17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of 
environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable 
terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed 


17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology 
and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries 
by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular 


information and communications technology 
Capacity-building 


17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and 
targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans 
to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through 
North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation 


Trade 


17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and 
equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, 
including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha 
Development Agenda 


17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in 
particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of 
global exports by 2020 


17.12 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market 
access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with 
World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential 
rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are 
transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access 


Systemic issues 
Policy and institutional coherence 


17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy 
coordination and policy coherence 


17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development 


17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and 
implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development 


Multi-stakeholder partnerships 


17.16 Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, 
complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share 
knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the 
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in 
particular developing countries 


17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil 
society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of 
partnerships 


Data, monitoring and accountability 


17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing 
countries, including for least developed countries and small island 
developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, 
timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, 
ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other 
characteristics relevant in national contexts 


17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of 
progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic 
product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries 


INDEX 


A 

Abdul-Matin, Ibrahim 146 

Abu Dhabi 116 

Adams, John 152 

Addis Ababa Action Agenda 66 
Administrative Law 89 

Agenda 21 12, 27, 44, 169 

Agenda, 2030 12, 27, 169 

Airline Deregulation Act 42 

Alexa 119 

Alternative Currencies Act 110 

Amazon 143 

American Enterprise Institute 42 
American Geographical Society 132 
Aphrodite 136 

Apollo 135 

Arizona Institute for Digital Progress 68, 98 
Arizona State University Center for Smart Cities and Regions 68, 97 
Artemis 135 

Art of War, The 154 

Asana 143 

Ashtoreth 136 

Asset Tokenization 108 

Association of Bay Area Governments 95 
Athena 135 

Atlantic, The 114 

B 

Baal 136 

Babbitt, Bruce 34 

Bahrain 116 

Bank for International Settlements 76, 106 
Bank of China 73 


Bank of England 106 

Belmont, City of 62 

Belt and Road Forum 74 
Between Two Ages 162 

Bezos, Jeff 143 

Big Brother 133 

Bilderberg 167 

Biodiversity 12 

Bitcoin 103 

BlackBerry Messenger 156 
Black Rock City 140 
Blockchain 104, 106 

Brave New World 16, 160 
Brave New World Revisited 160 
Brin, Sergey 143 

British Eugenics Society 161 
British Humanist Association 161 
Brookings Institution 42, 46 
Brown, Jerry 110 

Brundtland Commission 1 


Brundtland, Gro Harlem 18, 21, 29 


Buddhism 140 

Build America Transportation Investment Center 66 
Buildcoin 112 

Burke, Edmund 152 

Burning Man 140-143 

Bush, George H.W. 42, 150, 165 

Bus Regulatory Reform Act 42 

Butler, Nicholas Murray 8, 15 


Cc 

Camp, Garrett 143 
Cap and Trade 23 
Capitalism 28, 164 
Carbon Credits 23 


Carter, James Earl 42, 165 

Case Law 89 

Cashless Society 113-115 

CBS 167 

Chao, Angela 72 

Chao, Dr. James 72 

Chao, Elaine 66, 72, 75 

Chatterjee, Pratap 20 

Cheney, Dick 165 

Chicago Council on Global Affairs 47 
Chicago Sun-Times 167 

China 123-125 

China State Shipping Corporation 72 
Christianity 136 

Church of AI 143 

Cisco 58 

Clapper, James 130 

Climate Change 25 

Collaborative Governance 89-94, 97 
Collectivism 151 

Columbia University 9, 16, 160 
Commission on Human Settlements and the Centre for Human Settlements 47 
Communism 9, 151 

Connectography 84, 169 
Constitutional Republic 164, 166, 167 
Constitution of Mother Earth 111 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting 167 
Countywide Vision 157 
Cryptocurrencies 103—109 

D 

Dagon 136 

Declaration of Independence 128, 151 


Democrats 165 


Department of Homeland Security 67 
Department of Transportation 83 
Devolution 77-83, 85—100 

Diana 135 

Dionysus 135 

Discourse Theory 88 

Dobson, Dr. Jerome E. 132 
Dogecoin 104 

Dow Jones 167 

Dropbox 143 

Dubai 116, 128 

E 

Earth Brokers, The 20 

Earth Charter 145 

Earth Dollar 110 

EarthDollar Alliance 110 

Earth Summit 18, 21, 27 

Eastern religion 138 

Encyclical on Environment and Human Ecology 145 
Energy Certificates 14 

Energy Currency 23 

Esalen Institute 138-140 

Ethereum 104 

European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter 37 


Executive Order 12862 20, 79 
F 
Facebook 143, 156 


Fascism 151 


Federal Highway Administration 83 

Finger, Matthias 20 

Fintech 101-118 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 83 
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 66 


Ford Foundation 46 


Foremost Maritime Corporation 72 
Foucault, Michel 88 

Founding Fathers 151 

Fourth Amendment 122 

Free Enterprise 28, 164 

Fuller, Buckminster 61 

Future Shock 126 


G 

Gaebler, Ted 79 

Gardner, Richard 2, 153, 159, 170 
Gates, Bill 62 

GEOINT. See Geospatial intelligence 
George Mason University 132 
Geoslavery 133 

Geospatial information systems 37 
Geospatial intelligence 130—134 
German Development Institute 40 
Global Cities Team Challenge 67 
Global Institute for Green Growth 61 
Global Warming 12, 15 

Google 142 

Greater Phoenix Economic Council 68 
Greater Phoenix Smart Region Initiative 97-99 
Green Deen 146 

Green Economy 32, 116-117, 146 
GreenFaith 145 

Greenfield, Adam 63 


H 
Habitat II 47 


Habitat III. See United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban 
Development 


Hard Road To World Order, The 2 
Harvey, Larry 142 


Hearst Communications 7 


Hearst, Randolph 7-9, 15 

Heck, Charles 149 

High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons 34 
High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development 34 
Hitachi 58, 67 

Hoover Institution 64 

Houston, Drew 143 

Huawei 58 

Hubbert, M. King 9 

Hubbert, Randolph 9-10 

Humanism 136 

HushMail 156 

Huxley, Aldous 15, 101, 160 


I 


IBM 58 

ICLEI 51-53 

IEEE 67 

Infrastructure 43, 72 

Instagram 156 

Interfaith Summit on Climate Change 145 

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. See ICLEI 
International Monetary Fund 76 

International New Town Institute 61 

International Social Transformation Conference 23 
International trade 32 

International Youth Environment and Development Network 21 
Internet of Everything 129 

IoT. See Internet of Things 

Islam 115-117 

J 

Jinping, Xi 74 

John Hopkins 132 

Judeo/Christian ethic 140 

Jupiter 135 


K 

Khanna, Dr. Parag 3, 53, 77 

Ki-moon, Ban 34-35 

King, Larry 149 

Kissinger, Henry 74 

Knightscope 127 

Kyoto Protocol 35 

L 

Laudato si 145 

Levandowski, Anthony 143 

Levingston, William 55—56 

Lex Mercatoria 88 

Litecoin 104 

Livingston, William 168 

LocalActivist 157 

Local Governments for Sustainability. See ICLEI 
M 

Malaysia 116 

Marduk 136 

Maricopa Association of Governments 69 
Maricopa County, Arizona 68 

Marxism 151 

Mastering The Human Domain 130 
McConnell, Mitch 75 

McKinsey & Company 44 

MDGs. See Millennium Development Goals 
Mead, Margaret 61 

Media General 167 

Memoirs 168 

Merchant Law 88 

Merkel, Angela 25 

Merrill, John Calhoun vii 

Mershon Auditorium 29 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 82, 95 
Microsoft 58 


Millennium Development Goals 30 

Minerva 135 

Moloch 136 

Mondale, Walter 74, 165 

Monero 104 

Mordor Intelligence 59 

Mori Memorial Foundation 46 

Moskovitz, Dustin 143 

Motor Carrier Act 42 

Musk, Elon 143 

Mutual Broadcasting Network 149 

Mwangi, Wagaki 21 

N 

Nakamoto, Satoshi 104 

National Association of Development Organizations 67 
National Association of Regional Councils 80 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 130 
National Partnership for Reinventing Government 20, 79 
National Performance Review 79 

National Security Agency 105 

Natural Capital 110-111 


Neo-Feudalism 160 


Neptune 135 


New York Times 167 

Nineteen Eighty-Four 160 

No one left behind 39 

Nvidia 58 

O 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 132 
Obama, Barack 34 

Ocean Shipping Reform Act 42 
Ohanian, Alexis 143 

Ohio State University 67 


One Belt One Road 73, 74 

Oracle 58 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 46 
Orwell, George 133, 160 

Osborne, David 79 

Our Common Future 18, 29 

P 

P3 170. See Public-Private Partnerships 
Page, Larry 143 

Papa, Dominic 98 

Paris Agreement On Climate Change 28, 35 
Penn State 132 

Podesta, John 34 

Pope Francis 145 

Poseidon 135 

Pre-crime software 127 


Proton Mail 156 


R 

Radical Ritual 142 

Reagan, Ronald 149, 165 

Reddit 143 

Reflexive law 86-89 

Reinventing Government 79 
Republicans 165 

RFID 60 

Ride-sharing 15 

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 47 
Rio de Janeiro 18 

Ripple 104 

Roadless Rule 34 

Robocop 127 

Rockefeller, David 1, 22, 55, 165 
Rockefeller, John D. 55 

Rockefeller, Sr., William Avery 55, 168 


Rosenstein, Justin 143 


Rule of Law 169 


S 

Saint-Simon, Henri de 11, 136 
Santa Maria Tonantzintla 157 
Saudi Arabia 116 

Schmidt, Eric 143 

Scientific Dictatorship 16, 126, 160 
Scientific Method 12 
Scientism 11, 12, 136 

Scott, Howard 9 

SDGs. See Sustainable Development Goals 
Secretary of Transportation 75 
Sharia Finance 116 

Siemens 58 

SilentPhone 156 

Silicon Valley 138 

S.M.A.R.T. 58 

Smart Cities 129-130 

Smart City 3, 57-70 

Smart Grid 79, 129, 150 
Smart Growth 32 

Smart Meters 60 

Smart Regions 67-69, 98 
Smart Regions Initiative 67 
Snowden, Edward 119, 156 
Social Credit Scoring 125-126 
Social Engineering 58 
Socialism 151 

Songdo, City of 61 

Spirituality 135 

Staggers Rail Act 42 

StartMail 156 

Supply Chain Management 71, 83 


Surface Freight Forwarder Deregulation Act 42 


Surveillance Cameras 124 

Sustainable Development Goals 29, 50, 76, 101 
Sustainable Economies Law Center 110 
Sutton, Antony 149, 167 

Sutton’s Paradox 150 

Systems Theory 87 

T 

Taoism 140 

Technate 13 

Technocracy in America 3 
Technocracy, Inc. 10, 24 

Technocracy News & Trends 150 
Technocracy Rising 150 

Technocracy Study Course 10, 13 
Tempe, Arizona 68 

Ten Commandments 166 

Teradata 129 

Tesla 143 

Teubner, Gunther 87 

Think global, act local 154 

Time Magazine 73, 167 

Times-Mirror 167 

Toffler, Alvin and Heidi 123 

Toynbee, Arnold 61 

Trilaterals Over Washington 149 
Twitter 156 

U 

Uber 143 

UNCED. See United Nations Conference On Environment and Development 
UN Climate Change Conference 28 
UNESCO 115, 161 

UNFCC. See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 


UNICEF 115 
nited Nations 15 


niversal Declaration of Human Rights 111 


niversity of Chicago 42 

niversity of Kansas 132 

niversity of Maryland 132 

niversity of Missouri 132 

niversity of North Carolina 132 
niversity of Southern California 132 


niversity of Texas 132 





U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth 111 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 
U 


niversity of Utah 132 

UN Public Administration Programme 80 
UN Resolution 3201 65 

UN Statistical Division 24 

UN Sustainable Development Summit 28 
Urbanates 62 

Urban spatial planning 37 

USS. Forest Service 34 

Utopia 33, 55, 64, 143 
Utopia-On-A-Stick 143 

Vv 

Vance, Cyrus 74 

Venture Smarter 67 

Verizon 67 


Visa Cashless Challenge 114 
WwW 
Wall Street Journal 167 


nited Nations Conference On Environment and Development 18 

nited Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development 36 
nited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 25 

nited Nations’ Global Institute for Green Growth 61 

nited Nations Habitat and Human Settlements Foundation 47 


nited Nations Human Settlements Programme 47 


niversal Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples 111 


Ward, Barbara 61 

Washington Post 167 

Way of the Future 143 

World Bank 29, 46, 75 

World Commission On Environment and Development 18 
World Conservation Strategy 17 
World Council of Churches 145 
World Economic Forum 44, 53 
World Trade Organization 32 

World Wildlife fund 161 

WTO. See World Trade Organization 
xX 

Xiaoping, Deng 74 

Z 

Zen Buddhism 140 

Zeus 135 

Zuckerberg, Mark 143 





OTHER BOOKS BY Patrick M. Woop 
Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (Patrick Wood and Antony 
C. Sutton, 1978-80, Reprinted 2017) 

Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) 
Globalization and the Crucible of Global Banking (2018) 


For more information and current events on Technocracy, see: 


www. TECHNOCRACY.NEWS 


Coherent Publishing 
P.O. Box 52247 
Mesa, AZ 85247 

[email protected]

BACK