The 2020 Convergence

From 1968 Launch to 2020 Activation

In Trisectoral Networks, we discussed how Wolfgang Reinicke's model creates the democratic illusion — government, business, and civil society appearing to collaborate while actual coordination happens elsewhere.

In The Black Box, we discussed how this coordination occurs through hidden clearing houses that process information, capital, and authority flows behind the scenes.

But there's a deeper layer: the private template that builds these systems decades before the public even knows they exist. This isn't about individual conspiracies — it's about a replicable institutional technology that's been refined over centuries and deployed across domains — with laser precision.

---

In the recent post on the five steps, we discussed

1. Present the Moral Value

2. Frame It as a Crisis

3. Introduce the ‘Indicator’ Metrics

4. Grant ‘Expert’ Powers to Manage

5. Pathologise Dissent

These represent the ‘public’ steps, the ones you observe upon close inspection. These are, in essence, expressly what ‘The Black Box’ operationalises, ‘Trisectoral Networks’ use to build the technocratic infrastructure — one, repeatedly put to use over decades, as ‘Dialectics by Design’ argues. However, as Hilary Clinton would have you kznow, for every public statement (or position) there is a private one¹.

It’s a remarkable thing to put in writing, really, because what she essentially tells you is that you cannot trust her.

Five Steps

Dialectics by Design

---

The Hidden Engine: The Private Template

---

While the public sees moral appeals, crisis response, and expert panels in that order, the real work happens in a different sequence entirely:

1. Build the Expert Panel (The Hidden Hub)
   Establish the centralised clearing-house of insiders — banks, scientific committees, policy think-tanks, agencies — positioned years before anyone knows coordination is needed.

2. Create the Metrics & Indicators (The Technical Tools)
   Bake in the ‘scientific’ measurement systems — credit models, carbon accounting, biodiversity indices, risk calculators — that make subjective control appear objective and inevitable.

3. Frame the Moral Narrative (Seeding the Public Values)
   Plant the values-driven cause in public consciousness — ‘climate justice’, ‘public health as a right’, ‘equity’ — creating the emotional foundation for later acceptance.

4. Declare the Crisis (Flipping the Switch)
   Activate when conditions permit — market crash, pandemic surge, biodiversity collapse — so the pre-built machinery can deploy instantly.

5. Lock In Compliance (Pathologisation of Dissent)
   Tie careers, capital, and reputation to the new system; brand resistance as ‘denial’, ‘misinformation’, or ‘extremism’.

This private sequence operates years ahead of public awareness, creating the infrastructure that makes trisectoral networks possible and black box coordination inevitable. And a semi-recent example of just that includes the two UNCTAD ‘Combating Global Warming’ documents from 1992 and 1994, which outline the carbon emission/ecosystem service trading system, incidentally developed by Michael Grubb of the RIIA in the late 1980s.

Combating Global Warming

---

The 1968 Launch: Systems Thinking

---

The watershed moment came in 1968, when this private template was systematically deployed across multiple domains simultaneously. This wasn't organic environmental awakening — it was the coordinated launch of control technology.

The Foundation Year: 1968

UNESCO Biosphere Conference² (September 1968)

• Step 1: Created the ‘Man and the Biosphere’ expert network

• Step 2: Established ‘biosphere reserves’ as measurement/management framework

• Step 3: Introduced environmental stewardship as moral imperative

Club of Rome Formation³ (1968)

• Step 1: Assembled Aurelio Peccei (Fiat), Alexander King (OECD), and systems thinking experts

• Step 2: Developed computer modeling for ‘global problematique’

• Step 3: Framed interconnected global crises requiring expert coordination

Cultural Revolution⁴ (1968)

• Step 3: Questioning of traditional authority created opening for expert governance

• Step 3: Environmental consciousness emergence provided moral foundation

The 1968 Launch Event

---

The Infrastructure Rollout: 1968-2020

From this foundation, the private template was systematically deployed across every major domain:

Domain 1: Climate Change

• Step 1 (1988): IPCC established as expert clearing house⁵

• Step 2 (1990s-2000s): Carbon accounting⁶, emissions trading⁷, climate modeling frameworks⁸

• Step 3 (2006-2019): ‘Climate justice’ narrative⁹, moral urgency building¹⁰

• Step 4 (2019): ‘Climate emergency’ declarations¹¹, Greta Thunberg activation¹²

• Step 5 (2020+): ESG compliance¹³, ‘denier’ pathologisation¹⁴

Timeline Gap: 20+ years of infrastructure
→ 2019 moral urgency
→ 2020 economic lock-in

Domain 2: COVID-19/Health Security

• Step 1 (2005-2019): WHO networks¹⁵, Johns Hopkins Center¹⁶, pandemic preparedness infrastructure¹⁷¹⁸

• Step 2 (2004-2019): mRNA platforms¹⁹, Emergency Use pathways²⁰, contact tracing systems²¹

• Step 3 (2019-2020): ‘Public health as human right’²², collective responsibility²³

• Step 4 (March 2020): Pandemic declaration²⁴, lockdown deployment²⁵

• Step 5 (2020+): ‘Anti-vaxxer’²⁶, ‘misinformation’ pathologisation²⁷

Timeline Gap: 30+ years of infrastructure
→ March 2020 activation
→ immediate compliance

Domain 3: ESG Finance

• Step 1 (2000-2015): UN Global Compact²⁸, PRI networks²⁹, SASB frameworks³⁰

• Step 2 (2006-2019): ESG ratings³¹, TCFD reporting³², sustainability metrics³³

• Step 3 (2019): ‘Stakeholder capitalism’³⁴, Business Roundtable moral shift³⁵

• Step 4 (2020): Larry Fink's ‘fundamental reshaping’³⁶, Council for Inclusive Capitalism³⁷

• Step 5 (2020+): Mandatory ESG reporting³⁸, ‘greenwashing’ accusations³⁹

Timeline Gap: 15+ years of infrastructure
→ 2019-2020 moral imperative
→ economic enforcement

Domain 4: AI Safety/Governance

• Step 1 (2000-2022): Future of Humanity Institute⁴⁰, Partnership on AI⁴¹, research centers

• Step 2 (2010-2022): AI ethics frameworks⁴², safety metrics⁴³, alignment research⁴⁴

• Step 3 (2022-2023): ‘AI existential risk’⁴⁵, ‘AI ethics’ moral framing⁴⁶

• Step 4 (March 2023): ‘AI existential risk’ open letter⁴⁷, Sam Altman Senate hearings⁴⁸

• Step 5 (2023+): ‘AI safety’ regulation⁴⁹, ‘AI doomer’ vs ‘AI accelerationist’ pathologisation⁵⁰

Timeline Gap: 15+ years of infrastructure
→ March 2023 moral urgency
→ regulatory capture

Domain 5: Biodiversity/Planetary Boundaries

• Step 1 (1992-2012): Convention on Biological Diversity⁵¹, IPBES networks⁵²

• Step 2 (2007-2015): Planetary boundaries framework⁵³, natural capital accounting⁵⁴

• Step 3 (2019): ‘Biodiversity crisis’⁵⁵, ‘sixth mass extinction’ narratives⁵⁶

• Step 4 (2019-2022): IPBES Global Assessment⁵⁷, COP15 activation⁵⁸

• Step 5 (2020+): Conservation finance mandates⁵⁹, ‘biodiversity denier’ pathologisation⁶⁰

Timeline Gap: 20+ years of infrastructure
→ 2019 moral urgency
→ 2020+ economic integration

Domain 6: Digital Identity/CBDCs

• Step 1 (2016-2020): ID2020 alliance⁶¹, BIS research, Fed digital dollar teams⁶²

• Step 2 (2017-2021): CBDC frameworks⁶³, digital identity standards⁶⁴, KYC integration⁶⁵

• Step 3 (2020-2021): ‘Financial inclusion’⁶⁶, ‘banking the unbanked’ moral imperatives⁶⁷

• Step 4 (2020-2022): COVID contact tracing⁶⁸, vaccine passports⁶⁹, pilot programs

• Step 5 (2022+): Privacy concerns⁷⁰ pathologised as ‘anti-innovation’⁷¹, ‘conspiracy theory’⁷²

Timeline Gap: 5+ years of infrastructure
→ 2020-2021 moral imperative
→ pilot deployment

---

The 2020 Convergence: Simultaneous Activation

---

What makes 2020 remarkable isn't that the alleged crises occurred, but that the private template infrastructure was simultaneously activated across all domains:

• Health: WHO pandemic authority⁷³, emergency powers⁷⁴, mRNA deployment⁷⁵

• Climate: ‘Build Back Better’⁷⁶, green recovery⁷⁷, ESG acceleration⁷⁸

• Finance: Central bank coordination⁷⁹, ESG mandates⁸⁰, stakeholder capitalism⁸¹

• Technology: AI safety urgency⁸², content moderation⁸³, digital identity⁸⁴⁸⁵

• Information: ‘Infodemic’ response⁸⁶, fact-checking⁸⁷, ‘misinformation’ pathologisation⁸⁸

This wasn't organic crisis response — it was the coordinated deployment of infrastructure that had been built over decades.

The Meta-Crisis Framework: Planetary Boundaries

The ultimate sophistication came with Johan Rockström's planetary boundaries⁸⁹ framework (2009), which provides a meta-dialectical tool for simultaneous crisis activation across all domains.

Instead of separate crises, planetary boundaries creates a scientific framework that can declare multiple simultaneous boundary transgressions:

The 9 Boundaries = 9 Control Domains:

1. Climate Change⁹⁰ (SDG13: Climate Action⁹¹)
   → Carbon markets, energy transition

2. Biodiversity Loss⁹² (SDG15: Life on Land⁹³)
   → Conservation finance, nature management

3. Nitrogen/Phosphorus⁹⁴ (SDG2.4: Sustainable Agriculture⁹⁵)
   → Agricultural control, food systems

4. Ocean Acidification⁹⁶ (SDG14: Life Below Water⁹⁷)
   → Marine governance, fishing restrictions

5. Land Use Change⁹⁸ (SDG15.3: Sustainable Land Management⁹⁹)
   → Spatial planning, development control

6. Fresh water¹⁰⁰ (SDG6.5: Integrated Water Resources Management¹⁰¹)
   → Water governance, allocation systems

7. Ozone Depletion¹⁰² (Montreal Protocol¹⁰³)
   → Chemical regulation, industrial policy

8. Atmospheric Aerosols¹⁰⁴ (SDG11.6: Clean Air¹⁰⁵)
   → Air quality, industrial emissions

9. Chemical Pollution¹⁰⁶ (SDG12.4: Safer Chemicals & Waste¹⁰⁷)
   → Regulatory frameworks, risk assessment

Current Status (2024): 6 of 9 boundaries ‘transgressed’, cascading effects accelerating, planetary governance as only solution. Of course, that they established that a boundary had been crossed by 2015 without even knowing what said boundary was… well, that you’re not supposed to question¹⁰⁸.

Either way, this enables the ‘meta-crisis’ narrative: not just individual crises, but systemic Earth system crisis requiring comprehensive planetary management.

The Illusion of Democratic Response

The genius of this system is that it creates the appearance of democratic crisis response while operating through pre-positioned clearing house infrastructure:

What the Public Sees:

• Moral urgency emerges organically

• Experts respond to crisis

• Democratic institutions adapt

• Market solutions develop

• Dissent is naturally marginalised

What Actually Happens:

• Expert networks were pre-positioned¹⁰⁹

• ‘Indicator’ metrics were pre-built¹¹⁰

• Moral narratives were pre-seeded¹¹¹

• Crisis activation was coordinated¹¹²

• Dissent is systematically pathologised¹¹³

The trisectoral networks provide the democratic theater while the black box clearing houses provide the actual coordination.

---

The Moral Economy: Step 3 Perfected

---

What I've previously analysed as the ‘moral economy’ is actually Step 3 of the private template — the systematic deployment of moral frameworks to make economic control appear ethically inevitable rather than politically chosen.

The moral economy operates by:

• Moral Laundering: Economic policies dressed as ethical imperatives

• Values Integration: Market mechanisms embedded with social justice language

• Ethical Inevitability: Making alternatives appear not just inefficient but immoral

Examples across domains:

• Climate: ‘Climate justice’ makes carbon markets appear morally necessary¹¹⁴

• Health: ‘Public health as human right’ makes medical authority appear ethically mandatory¹¹⁵

• Finance: ‘Stakeholder capitalism’ makes ESG compliance appear socially responsible¹¹⁶

• Technology: ‘AI ethics’ makes algorithmic governance appear morally superior¹¹⁷

The moral economy ensures that Step 3 (moral narrative) isn't just persuasive — it's psychologically and socially mandatory.

---

Inclusive Capitalism: The Lock-In Mechanism

---

‘Inclusive capitalism’ represents the perfected form of Step 5 — locking in compliance by making the system appear responsive to social justice concerns while maintaining the same control structures.

As I showed in Inclusive Capitalism, this works by:

• Linguistic Capture: Adopting social justice language while maintaining power structures

• Participation Theater: Creating the appearance of inclusion while controlling outcomes

• Resistance Absorption: Channeling dissent into system-reinforcing activities

The Vatican Partnership (2020)¹¹⁸: The Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican represents the ultimate synthesis — economic control blessed by moral authority, making resistance appear not just economically dangerous but spiritually evil.

Inclusive capitalism ensures that even ‘progressive’ resistance ends up reinforcing the same clearing house infrastructure — just with more diverse faces and social justice rhetoric.

---

Game B: The Sophisticated Capture

---

The most sophisticated development is the emergence of ‘Game B’ — apparently alternative systems thinking that actually serves the same control template.

Daniel Schmachtenberger's work perfectly illustrates this. His ‘metacrisis’ framework directly parallels the planetary boundaries approach:

• Complex adaptive systems thinking

• Existential risk framing

• Civilisational transition necessity

• Coordination mechanisms for planetary management

The Game B Methodology:

• Step 1: Alternative expert networks (Game B practitioners, complexity scientists, Civilisation Research Institute)

• Step 2: Alternative metrics (anti-fragility, complex adaptive systems models, coordination mechanisms)

• Step 3: Alternative morality (‘civilisation-level coordination’, ‘species-level thinking’, ‘post-conventional ethics’)

• Step 4: Alternative crisis (‘metacrisis’, ‘meaning crisis’, ‘coordination failure’, ‘civilisational transition’)

• Step 5: Alternative compliance (‘conscious evolution’, ‘post-conventional thinking’, ‘developmental sophistication’)

The Schmachtenberger Example: Daniel Schmachtenberger's ‘metacrisis’ framework perfectly illustrates this sophisticated capture:

‘We have a crisis of crises—a metacrisis. The environmental crisis, the social crisis, the economic crisis, the political crisis, the technological crisis, the psychological crisis, the spiritual crisis... These are all symptoms of a deeper crisis: our civilisation's inability to coordinate at the level of complexity that our current challenges require.’

This leads directly to the same conclusion as the UN's planetary boundaries framework: the need for comprehensive coordination systems that transcend democratic governance. The language is more sophisticated (‘coordination mechanisms’ instead of ‘global governance’), but the outcome is identical.

The Capture Mechanism: Game B provides the intellectual framework for people who reject traditional authority structures to arrive at the same conclusions — planetary-scale coordination through expert systems.

Game B as Controlled Opposition: Rather than offering genuine alternatives, Game B channels sophisticated dissent into the same clearing house infrastructure — just with more appealing language about ‘conscious evolution’ and ‘post-conventional coordination’.

The most sophisticated minds who reject mainstream narratives end up advocating for the same expert-managed coordination systems, just with different moral frameworks and technical vocabularies.

---

The Methodological Capture

---

This explains why ‘doing your own research’ typically leads to the same conclusions — the methodological frameworks ensure that independent investigation reproduces the desired results:

• Climate Research: Must use IPCC methodologies, carbon accounting standards, climate models

• Health Research: Must use WHO frameworks, epidemiological models, risk assessments

• Economic Research: Must use ESG metrics, sustainability accounting, stakeholder models

• Technology Research: Must use AI safety frameworks, ethics guidelines, risk assessments

• Alternative Research: Must use complexity science, systems thinking, existential risk frameworks

Even ‘Game B’ methodologies — complexity science, systems thinking, anti-fragility — lead to the same conclusions about the need for expert coordination systems. Alternative methodologies are excluded from funding, publication, and professional recognition — or channeled into ‘alternative’ frameworks that serve the same function.

The meta-crisis narrative makes democratic governance appear structurally inadequate, and democratically impossible:

• Too Complex: ‘Citizens can't understand planetary boundaries’

• Too Technical: ‘Politicians can't grasp systemic interactions’

• Too Urgent: ‘Democracy too slow for crisis response’

• Too Global: ‘Nations can't coordinate planetary management’

The pre-engineered answer to all of these is very simple: only technocratic coordination through expert clearing houses can manage systemic planetary crisis.

---

Conclusion: The Perfected Template

---

The same five-step template has been refined and deployed across centuries leading to today's planetary governance frameworks:

→ Build the hidden hub
→ Create technical necessity
→ Frame moral urgency
→ Activate crisis
→ Lock in compliance

But the 2020 activation revealed something unprecedented: the template's evolution into a comprehensive three-layer system that captures not just compliance but dissent itself.

• Layer 1: Direct Compliance (Traditional approach)

  • Mainstream institutions, conventional experts, standard metrics

  • Direct moral pressure and economic enforcement

  • ‘Follow the science’, ‘trust the experts’

• Layer 2: Moral Economy/Inclusive Capitalism (Sophisticated adaptation)

  • Social justice language integrated with control mechanisms

  • Stakeholder capitalism, ESG compliance, diversity metrics

  • Makes resistance appear not just wrong but socially irresponsible

• Layer 3: Game B/Alternative Systems (Ultimate sophistication)

  • Complexity science, systems thinking, conscious evolution

  • Metacrisis frameworks, existential risk, civilisational transition

  • Captures even sophisticated dissent into the same coordination mechanisms

The Progression Through Layers

The system is designed to capture people at different levels of sophistication:

Layer 1 Capture: ‘Climate change is real, trust the IPCC, support carbon markets’

If rejected →
Layer 2 Capture: ‘Climate change disproportionately affects marginalised communities, support climate justice through inclusive capitalism’

If rejected →
Layer 3 Capture: ‘We face a metacrisis requiring civilisational-level coordination beyond conventional frameworks’

All layers lead to the same outcome: Expert-managed coordination systems, just with different moral frameworks and technical vocabularies. But in the event a sophisticated dissenter does intellectually progress through all three layers:

1. Rejects mainstream climate narrative
   → ‘IPCC is politically captured’

2. Rejects progressive climate justice
   → ‘ESG is corporate greenwashing’

3. Adopts Game B metacrisis framework
   → ‘We need post-conventional coordination mechanisms’

Each rejection appears to lead to greater sophistication, yet the final destination is identical: expert-managed planetary governance systems, unprecedented is its methodological comprehensiveness. Every possible approach — mainstream, progressive, or alternative — leads to the same conclusions:

• Mainstream Path: IPCC
  → climate emergency → carbon markets → expert coordination

• Progressive Path: Climate justice¹¹⁹
  → inclusive capitalism → stakeholder governance → expert coordination

• Alternative Path: Metacrisis
  → complex adaptive systems → civilisational coordination → expert coordination

The system has achieved methodological totalisation — there is no legitimate way to think about complex global challenges that doesn't lead to expert-managed coordination systems.

The Dissent Channeling Mechanism

Traditional control systems suppressed dissent. The perfected template channels dissent:

• Mainstream dissent
  → labeled ‘misinformation’, ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘anti-science’

• Progressive dissent
  → absorbed into inclusive capitalism, stakeholder frameworks

• Sophisticated dissent
  → channeled into Game B, complexity science, metacrisis frameworks

All forms of resistance end up reinforcing the same clearing house infrastructure — just with different moral frameworks and technical languages. Meanwhile, the meta-crisis narrative makes democratic governance appear structurally inadequate across all three layers:

• Layer 1: ‘Too complex for public understanding, too technical for political processes’

• Layer 2: ‘Too urgent for democratic deliberation, too global for national governance’

• Layer 3: ‘Too evolutionary for conventional thinking, too civilisational for current institutions’

Whether you approach from mainstream, progressive, or alternative perspectives, democracy appears inadequate for managing planetary-scale challenges¹²⁰.

Return to the Source

What this analysis reveals is that all roads lead back to the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs aren't just another policy framework — they're the ultimate meta-framework that integrates every approach:

• Layer 1 (Mainstream): ‘Follow the science’
  → Planetary boundaries → SDG implementation

• Layer 2 (Progressive): ‘Climate justice’
  → Inclusive capitalism → SDG implementation

• Layer 3 (Alternative): ‘Metacrisis’
  → Complex coordination → SDG implementation

The genius of the system is that the SDGs provide the comprehensive umbrella under which all these approaches converge:

• Scientific Authority
  Planetary boundaries provide the ‘scientific’ justification for SDG targets

• Moral Authority
  Development goals provide the ‘ethical’ justification for SDG implementation

• Technical Authority
  Expert coordination provides the ‘practical’ mechanism for SDG achievement

The Closed-Loop System

The SDG-Planetary Boundaries integration creates a methodologically closed system:

• Can't address planetary boundaries without implementing SDGs

• Can't implement SDGs without respecting planetary boundaries

• Both require expert-managed coordination mechanisms

• All alternative approaches lead to the same SDG-based solutions

‘Sustainable Development’ becomes the ultimate conceptual framework that makes every other approach appear as mere implementation details of the same comprehensive system. And that goes whether you approach from:

• Mainstream climate science → SDG 13 (Climate Action)

• Progressive social justice → SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

• Alternative systems thinking → SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

• Economic efficiency → SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

• Technological innovation → SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)

Every path leads to the same conclusion: expert-managed implementation of the SDG framework as the comprehensive solution to global challenges.

The SDGs represent the ultimate achievement of the private template: a ‘scientific’ and ‘moral’ framework that appears politically neutral while ensuring all possible approaches to global governance lead to the same expert-coordinated outcomes.

The Ultimate Synthesis

The genius of the perfected template is that it creates the appearance of vigorous debate while ensuring all positions lead to the same outcome:

• The Debate: Mainstream vs. Progressive vs. Alternative approaches

• The Outcome: Expert-managed coordination systems across all domains

• The Justification: Scientific necessity (Layer 1), moral imperative (Layer 2), evolutionary inevitability (Layer 3)

---

This is how you build a technocracy that appears not just democratic but morally and intellectually superior to democracy: by ensuring that every possible way of thinking about problems leads to expert governance solutions.

The Trisectoral Networks provide the democratic facade.
The Black Box clearing houses provide the coordination infrastructure.
A Global Ethic provides the ethical justification.
The Moral Economy provides the economic inevitability.
Inclusive Capitalism provides the progressive legitimacy.
Game B provides the intellectual sophistication.
Agenda 21 provides the stakeholder governance justification.
The Sustainable Development Goals provide the methodological inevitability.

But — though invisible to public view — the private template provides the methodological engine that makes expert governance appear inevitable from every possible perspective.

The 52-year arc from 1968 to 2020 wasn't just the construction of control infrastructure — it was the systematic capture of reason, ensuring that every path of logical thinking leads to the same destination: expert-managed global society.

---

This is the ultimate sophistication —

Not simply controlling what people think, but controlling how these thoughts should consider alternatives to the current system.

Trisectoral Networks

The Black Box

A Global Ethic

The Moral Economy

Inclusive Capitalism

Game B

Agenda 21

The Sustainable Development Goals