Some advocates of sustainable development possess an almost theological faith in what I refer to as “rhetorical” sustainable development as the path to providing for the sound future of human civilizations and critical ecological systems. Simply put, if we try to think “too big” and “bite off too much” then the system we are trying to control or influence consumes us and our resources and we fail miserably. There is real and predictable danger in grandeur. This means we need to think about achieving sustainability in very specific and concrete terms applied to clear goals and an honest understanding of the processes, institutions, motivational elements and relationships that are involved. I argue that at the rhetorical level of the kind set out by organizations such as the IISD where policy and practice on all levels from the “individual to the international” must change if sustainability is ever to be achieved, the so-called “ideal” of sustainability is a Trojan Horse, a delusional set of unworkable premises, and a cynical rhetorical device that guarantees real change implementing good strategies for resource preservation, human development, conflict avoidance and resolution, and social progress does not occur. “Rhetorical” rather than “operational” sustainable development allows politicians and international institutions to cover up their failures and corruption by paying lip service to the exuberant vision, hoping to deflect attention from their real behavior. It also provides “cover” for businesses who agree to the inflated and strategically unworkable rhetoric and in doing so obtain the blessing of their association with the “good guys”. The problems go even deeper. Rhetorical sustainable development continues the flawed assumptions about human nature and motivation that provided the foundational premises of Marxist collectivism and centralized planning authorities. Such perspectives inject rigidity and bureaucracy into a dynamic, fluid and adaptive system that requires monitoring, flexibility and adaptation. Nor, in criticizing the failed Marxist-Leninist form of organization should this paper be seen as a defense of market capitalism. Like Marxism, market capitalism is little more than another quasi-religion. A result is the introduction of a destructive global trading system hidden inside rhetorical sustainable development.