Communitarianism...UN Agenda 21

Rosa Koire has officially freaked me out speaking about the United Nations Agenda 21. Communitarianism is not for us, our well being, but for corporate tyranny to implement the NWO plan for globalization’s complete surveillance and control over all land, trade, and an individuals movement and forthcoming economic impoverishment. Globalization led by one central corporate body of unelected officials. Didn’t really understand the last portion of the video about geoengineering, the chemtrails, and how that furthers Agenda 21.

Nice post Wendy.

Of course from my perspective this all comes from hundreds of thousands of years from miseducation about sex. Unless people understand that, nothing will change.
This is the UN’s organization that is taking over the USA to accomplish its’ Agenda 21. There’s a list of the US membership where you can see if your city or county is already infected.

The horror! The Horror!

And here of course we have the usual suspects:

capitalists vs. socialists
conservatives vs. liberals
individualists vs. collectivists
and on and on and on.

My point of course is that among the rabid objectivists, there is only one right way in which to understand agenda 21; and only one right way in which to react to it. And this includes both means and ends.

One of us [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].

Deontologically as it were.

Beyond all else, it is vital that the “real me” be in touch with what is really going on here so that, in knowing “the right thing to do”, the world can be saved in time.

Biggie wrote

It’s supposed to seem innocuous, duh! That’s why we have the climate change crisis in full swing to push this harmless, sustainable lifestyle.

However, the climate change is a lie as well as the UN’s alarm about overpopulation when the world wide population has been in a steady decline since the 60’s that it may never recover from since the largest populated countries (China and India) are producing 2.1 children or less. In fact most countries are producing less than 2.1 children so people are not going to be replaced within the next thirty years, Africa being the only continent where fertility rates remain high, but as they get more access to birth control, their rates will drop off as well.

Back to the climate change lie, less than 1% of scientists say that climate change is caused by human contributions. The lie that 97% of scientists say that humans are causing climate change was actually based on a study conducted by citizen scientists aka activists who googled through scientific reports about climate change and only looked for keywords (such as human activity) to appear rather than reading the studies to find out what the key words they were searching were being used for. If the words human activity were found present in the study, then that scientist supported climate change. The amount of dishonesty is astounding.

Right, like there aren’t any number folks on the other end of the political spectrum who can’t rip these points to shreds. Then it becomes a matter of whether they are, like you, authoritarian in their agrndas.

Over and again, what becomes important to them is not what they believe is true in regard to moral and political value judgments, but that what they believe is true allows them to sustain what I construe to be the illusion of the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”. In other words, “the psychology of objectivism”.

Which I then ascribe existentially to dasein and they ascribe essentially to one or another transcending font: God, deontology, political ideology, objectivist reason, nature.

Only here I am no less included in my own argument.

As for climate change, sooner or later the actual reality is going to unfold. 50 years from now either the dire predictions of the left will come to be or the changes will be minimal and the predictions of the right will be born out. Of course few of us are likely to be around to say “I told you so”.

Or you can think about it all like this. Suppose we were actually entering a new Ice Age. Our goal would be to warm the planet up as much as possible.

See how it works? Context is everything.

Biggie wrote

What does transcending font mean?

Biggie wrote

Note to you Biggie, that saying the above is not the equivalent of the reality of it which has yet to happen. So, the possiblitity is not the reality even though you state it as if it is a fact. You are theorizing only and offer nothing of substance.

Again, we need a context.

How about individual reactions to Agenda 21?

We collect 100 people who are familiar with it. People who have formed an opinion about it. But their opinions fall all along the political spectrum. Based on their belief in God, their philosophical assessment of good and evil, their political ideology, their assessment of rational thinking, their conviction that some things are natural and some things are not.

The part I attribute to dasein.

A transcending font [which most call God] would be the person or thing all of these individuals could go to in order to determine definitively and once and for all what all reasonable and ethical men and women are obligated to think and feel about it.

Again, for religious folks, this is because God is almost always said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. For the secular objectivists, it is because they insist that only if you share their own philosophical, ideological, natural etc., value judgments can you be “one of us”. In other words, they reconfigure themselves into that font that all others must accept. Then it’s just a matter of where the lines are drawn: around race? around gender" around ethnicity? around sexual preference? around Trump? around abortion? around Agenda 21?

What reality? What context? What interpretation of Agenda 21?

What particular set of political prejudices?

In other words, why your rendition of “substance” here and not the liberals?

My point is only to suggest that this substance of yours is the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption rooted in my signature thread arguments. No more or no less than my own. Only my “I” is considerably more fractured than yours is. And, in particular, I explain why on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

For me, the bottom line in regard to objectivists of your ilk is not what you believe about Agenda 21, but that what you have thought yourself into believing about it has come to embody the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

This part by and large: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Okay, I need practice…I’ll bite. Start a thread and choose a current debatable in a context, Biggie. Share your definitions regarding the subject matter in context.


Honestly dude! When you’re 2 years old, you probably said that 2+2 = a million

When you became older, now you know that it is 4.

That’s all your “fractured self”is. Because you didn’t know EVERYTHING !! The first time, facts can’t exist!!

That’s called “narcissism”

Note to others…

Pick one:

He is…

…a double boogie short of a hole in one
…a few fries short of a Happy Meal
…not the brightest bulb in the box
…one twist short of a slinky
…not the sharpest tool in the shed
…a few sandwiches short of a picnic
…a few clowns short of a circus
…a few beers short of a six-pack
…missing a few buttons on his remote control
…a few Bradys short of a bunch.

Unless of course we’re all wrong. :wink:

A “current debatable in a context”? Not sure what you mean.

Do you mean a moral or political issue in which there are men and women all up and down the political spectrum who, in a debate, will argue for or against conflicting goods?

My point though is that in regard to Agenda 21, that is exactly what does happens. Both sides make arguments that, given a particular set of assumptions regarding such things as the human condition, the United Nations, the role of government, the distribution of wealth and power, the global economy, God and religion, individualism vs. collectivism etc., come to conflicting conclusions as to how human beings should interact across the globe.

Indeed, once as an objectivist myself [a Marxist, a socialist, a democratic socialist, a social democrat], I embraced the left/liberal political agenda. Now, however, I have come to the conclusion the arguments of those on the right are equally reasonable given their own set of initial assumptions about all those things above.

Again, my argument revolves around this:

Though, sure, if you would like to explore these relationships more substantively/contextually in regard to another issue like abortion or race or human sexuality or Trump or the welfare state or gun legislation etc., let me know and I will start the thread.

Iambiguous, you can’t beg your way out of this one:

You’re fractured self (as described by you) is:

1.) you have dreams
2.) you didn’t pick the right political narrative the first or even the second time

The reason I call this narcissism is because if you thought 2+2 equals a million and now you know it’s 4, if YOU got it wrong ONCE!!! Everyone must be wrong about everything!

Okay, okay I’ll add a few more…

He is…

…a few tires short of an eighteen wheeler
…a few pecans short of a fruitcake
…a few sheep short of a flock
…a few colors short of a rainbow
…a few bristles short of a broom

[size=50]of course I’m just joshing!![/size]

Biggie wrote

Yes, pick one and define your words that are important.

Source? Wiki links to dozens of studies backing up the claim (including ones who seem to begin their study with the claim that you’re making), as well as reports produced by mutually-independent scientific bodies also supporting the consensus.

What one study are you rejecting, based on what, and what about all the many many others that reach the same conclusion?

Had a video that went over all that but I can’t remember its title. I’ll continue looking, but in the meantime I’ve added an interesting article link. This website may be a legit group of scientists who aren’t getting any payoff. I read some sections that dispute the climate change conspiracy and they even have a category where they respond to their critics. I plan on reading those eventually.

Several supposed climate alarmist, scientific organizations have perpetrated bogus findings and false claims leaving out the majority of scientists, scientists who are even members of those organizations who never consented to their organizations claims who do not state that humans are causing climate change. However as the climate hysteria escalates, climate scientists who speak out are excommunicated from their jobs, their labs, their grants, their reputations are smeared and they are bullied into silence.


I’ll bet you big bucks that he and his help didn’t read through 24,210 articles in a year or less. This smells fishy like what I was trying to describe where they add key words in a google search of abstracts, such as entering the words “no anthropogenic warming” without actually reading the papers. Only five papers had the words “no anthropogenic warming” in them, so wham-bam-thankyou-ma’am, his findings of only five scientists who said there was no anthropogenic warming. Today, science is driven by money and there’s no level too low for those trying to cash in to sink.

I’d really like to read his paper. How though? I tried to follow a few links and it’s not easily made available to the public.

Obviously I don’t know for sure, but from this description this sound’s like an obviously unreliable source.

Space architect Larry Bell, writing an opinion piece in Forbes, and unsure what “significant” might mean to a climate scientist.

I don’t want to spend too much time dunking on this, because it’s a bad source and he cites better sources that you cite again that I’ll address separately. But I should point out that he argues 1) there’s no consensus, 2) the consensus is caused by funding and institutional pressure; 3) we should dismiss opinions from non-specialist (or panels including non-specialists), 4) we should take seriously climate skeptics who are “environmental business leaders” (see also: space architect).

Sure, or it could be a branch of a farm lobbying organization that spent years arguing that cigarettes aren’t bad for your health because its constituents include tobacco farmers. Who can really tell?

Space architect Larry Bell points to a bruhaha at the American Physical Society, in which a group of scientists opposed the APS’ position on climate change. Were these scientists summarily fired and dismissed from the organization? No, the organization convened a panel to review the literature and determined that their position on climate change was well supported, but decided to review the statement for “clarity and tone”.

Which is not to say that we can’t find a lot of people who are dicks to people they disagree with, of course wecan. But claims of a witch hunt are overblown (as are claims about what exactly most academic climate scientists are looking for; seems like the in the APS case some of the scientists were objecting to the word “incontrovertible”, which does seem somewhat unscientific).

Yep, that’s the consensus.

Found on … l-2015.pdf

(Also, for future reference, sci-hub often has papers when Google Scholar only links to an abstract ( It’s like Pirate Bay for scientific papers)

You are right that they did not read the papers, only the titles and abstracts. Given the perceived consensus, I think that’s a reasonable approach, since a paper that challenges or doesn’t accept the consensus position would be likely to note that in the abstract. They aren’t interested in most of what the paper has to say, so reading the paper as a whole would be overkill. But reading the abstract should give a good estimate of the level of consensus.

Even to the extent we reject it, the response isn’t to throw out everything. Knowing that the abstracts for only 5 out of 24,210 papers mentioning
“global warming” or “climate change” explicitly reject human-caused global warming tells us something important about the level of consensus. Even if we think the paper itself overstates its conclusion, what’s a reasonable estimate of how much that changed the consensus? 5%? 10%? That would still leave a near-universal scientific consensus that humans cause (some part of) climate change.