Why I Agree with the Georgia Guidestones to a NWO and You Should Too!

originally posted by: Tuomptonite
Those "guide" stones are complete rubbish. The blowhards who commissioned this pile of rocks don't even have the balls to stand behind their vague and generic statements. That tells me all I need to know. If somebody has something important and profound to say, they will attach their name to it. I'm not moved by the stones message and I smirk at those who find wisdom from them.

I am very perplexed and fascinated that something this vague and simple can elicit such fear, suspicion, anger, hatred, animosity, division, etc among people on such a wide scale.

Once I focused on rising above those petty vices I saw this type of phenomena very prominently.

It is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as people are essentially saying "those people are hateful, so therefore we must all hate them vehemently!" which makes no sense at all to me and seems to only increase the amount of hate we all experience and express in our lives. Such strong emotions, especially it's root - Fear, are simply not beneficial for having productive discussions.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

the birth rate does not simply " have to drop " it has to fall BELOW the mortality rate - a subtle but important distinction

but unfortunatly many groups have a dogmatic opposiotion to such a notion :

catholics spring to mind

as for the realities of reducing the birthrate - how did that policy work out for the chinese ?

if you are going to insult people - just bear in mind that a significant minority of the worlds population have religious imperatives to breed

and its [ poputlation manipulation by reduced birth rate ] already been tried and failed in one of the most authroritarian nations on earth

so - you were saying ?

a reply to: Involutionist

aprt from the fact that the wording of the tennants makes no indication that :

#1 - " only applies to the united states of america "

simply from a logical POV - the US has growing issues of water availiability and otthers with its CURRENT 320 million population

adding another 180 million - is to be blunt absurd - in the context of what the guidestones suggets in tennant 2 ~ 10

originally posted by: blueman12
If it could be done peacefully, I'm all for those georgia guidestones. However, I think humanity is too ignorant to change. I think there is a good chance that we will breed and war our way into oblivion.

From the sentiments expressed in this thread so far, I reluctantly understand and sympathize with your cynicism.

However I am left with two choices, to either give up or to fight harder. And I want to be the change I wish to see in the world, if that's how it works than that's what I'll do. I will try to stop the coming disaster if I can. If my little letters on a screen can affect even a few people and cause them to question themselves and their beliefs, than I am making progress.





So it's like the Mandela Butterfly Domino Effect...

a reply to: muzzleflash

Ecology and abolishing economic systems based on planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity is a far cry from soulless eugenics.

You propose making procreation an actual crime.

What will the penalty be for having a baby without govt permission and licenses?

One way ticket to alpha centauri?
Fired out of a cannon into the sun?

And what about those born with physical disablities?
They require much more resources and help than a healthy person.
Obviously they will be a drain on the system.
a "cancer" as stated by your beloved stones.
Do we euthanize them too?

a reply to: muzzleflash

I see what you're saying and I agree with you. There are many good points as well.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: muzzleflash

Ecology and abolishing economic systems based on planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity is a far cry from soulless eugenics.

You propose making procreation an actual crime.

What will the penalty be for having a baby without govt permission and licenses?

One way ticket to alpha centauri?
Fired out of a cannon into the sun?

And what about those born with physical disablities?
They require much more resources and help than a healthy person.
Obviously they will be a drain on the system.
a "cancer" as stated by your beloved stones.
Do we euthanize them too?

Where did I propose making procreation an actual crime?
The only mentions of laws was in the context of less laws, not more.

I was discussing education and people being responsible.

You're making a strawman argument.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: amazing

There is more than enough resources and space on this planet for billions of more humans if we just manage our resources properly.

Think of this:

There is so much water on our planet that we will never run out...ever. Part two of this statement is that there is more than enough money to build thousands of desalinization plants to harvest the oceans water for our every day needs.

There is more than enough power, if we build more wind and solar installations.

We would then transition all transportation to electric and our pollution would disappear.

And so on and so on. overpopulation and lack of resources is the biggest myth of our modern age.

Perhaps that might be true. Perhaps Earth can sustain 100 billion people or a trillion.

But can you argue any decent reasoning (at least a few points) about why we need or desire that many people?

And does more people mean more problems, like relationship dramas, court cases, hospital visits for injury or disease, etc etc ? Why do we want a forever increasing scale of all of these events? Is it desirable as a species to just say "We should breed to infinity!" and push forward in that direction?

Why exactly is this such a great idea and so precious that we must protect it at all costs?
No one has to be murdered, as you said guideline 2 is an extension of achieving 1. So the reasoning cannot simply be "life is precious and so therefore murder is wrong" because no one is outwardly condoning or suggesting mass murder as the 'final solution'.

So why exactly is mass reproduction without limits such a great idea for our future society?

Well once you understand that there is enough resources and room, then it becomes one question. Who decides who may have children? Who are you to tell me not to have another child?

Then it becomes the main question in the history of humanity. Why do you think you have control over my freedom and what is more important than freedom?

a reply to: muzzleflash

alright then. if it a strawman argument, then in the case of a 500,000,000 human population, if someone decides they are in love, and want to have a baby.
but that would mean we have 500,000,001 people.
and then it is a very slippery reproductive slope to 500,000,002 people.
then what?
chaos?

how would the few control the reproduction of the many?
and if you say "education" again, allow me to show you what happened in schools where they preached abstinence.
(hint: it didnt work very well at all)

Mod Note: removed spam content from spammer.

Its something I've always wondered...

Why does everyone hate them? They are just bits of stone with vague statements.

And even then, the statements aren't exactly evil or "doom porn", they make at least some sense.

It seems they are a guide.... rather a plea to a future generation. One after ours has long gone due to one reason or another. Lets be honest, to rebuild a nation/world based on our mistakes seems logical. And we've made enough.

We just don't know why they're there. or when these guidelines are going to come in useful. To be honest, if we were to be wiped out to a point where we COULD "maintain" humanity at 500,000,000, who's to say those stones would even survive the event that wiped us out?

(PS - Did we ever find out who put them there? For sure? - Regardless of their meaning, their origin is fascinating)

Yeah, many might agree with number one as long as it is not them.

Probably not much disagreement with the rest.

Edit: Actually controlling population is also kinda creepy too. Look at China now with all these one child families. I think its kinda (can be) sad growing up as an only child, or a family with only one child. I don't know if I agree with government getting involved with telling you how to live; telling you many children you can have etc.

In Buckminster Fuller's book Critical Path, he tackles many of these problems of overpopulation with technological innovations. Farming technology, transportation technology etc., may allow us to live in places we could not in the past, all while keeping the Earth sustainable.

Muzzleflash:

Also anything related to this you'd like to bring up you are more than welcome.

1) Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Global population has risen so fast over the past century that roughly 14% of all the human beings that have ever existed are still alive today – that's a sobering statistic…

Professor Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling in the Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences.

Some very strange and illogical claims have been made in this thread, particularly with regard to how large a population the world can sustain. Why is it suggested to maintain humanity at half a billion globally? Of course, it is to give that half a billion people an equal level of existence and an equal amount of accessible resources and to maintain a similar level of quality of life. It is also to reduce the strain on the earth’s resources.

We are over-populated. The extractable finite resources of a finite earth cannot support the current population levels. The developed countries, alone, require the resources of one and a half earths to maintain current quality of lifestyles. Are you prepared to reduce the level of quality of your lifestyle to aid the many billions who exist and survive way below such a level? You can’t bring those people up to your level, you would need the resources of five earths to do that. No, you have to reduce your level if you live in a developed country, you have to level down to them. There is no alternative.

The problems we are experiencing now were realised and known over a century ago. There are people alive today who were born into a world where the global population level was 2 billion. We are now at 6.5 billion. In one human’s lifetime, the world’s population has increased by over 4.5 billion. This has put such a strain on the earth’s resources that it is going to bring conflict into human relations around the planet as people begin to migrate towards the developed countries where most of the earth’s extracted resources are focussed and delivered.

Climate variations and disruptions, from temperate to hostile, will drive desperate people away from their traditional countries towards the countries they believe they will find a better life. How welcoming of them will you be?

a reply to: elysiumfire
In reply to your post I seem to remember a certain Mrs Merkel stating that Germany does not now have a viable population and that was her reasoning to invite the immigrants into Germany. Most people tend to forget that little gem. And pray tell me how that is working out for the ordinary German citizen now.

crayzeed:

In reply to your post I seem to remember a certain Mrs Merkel stating that Germany does not now have a viable population and that was her reasoning to invite the immigrants into Germany. Most people tend to forget that little gem. And pray tell me how that is working out for the ordinary German citizen now.

Merkel is a prat of immense proportions! She has seen and is quite aware of the violence and intoleration of western culture brought by immigrants to Germany, yet ignores it out of an agenda. I don't ask how welcoming of migrating immigrants one will be out of sympathy for them, I believe in quality, not quantity. I was merely asking the question for others to understand their own response to them.

I live in the UK, and I voted for Brexit. Not because I am racist, I am not, but because I utterly disbelieve the function and form of the EU. I am not anti-European, I am anti-EU. It is a political model based entirely on the self-interest of the globalists, and I disagree entirely with their vision.

When I was born, 56 years ago, the world's population was 3 billion. In 56 years, the world's population has jumped to 6.5 billion. In my life time, 3.5 billion people have added to the world's population. This is a phenomenal growth of unprecedented speed.

Suppose you are married, and you come home to your wife and she says she is pregnant. You are the only one who works, you are both surviving off your mediocre wage. As time goes by, checks on the pregnancy reveal that not only is she pregnant, but she is going to have quintuplets, so now you have to prepare for five children. How are you going to cope? How is it going to effect your lifestyle. Suddenly, you are going from just two people to seven. What was once quite easy and pleasant, has now become a strain upon you.

You don't have infinite resources, you can no longer maintain the lifestyle you and your wife enjoyed. Of course, you make the adjustment, as any responsible parent would, but the struggle is going to be immense. Fortunately you will get assisted help from the state, but you will still see a lessening in your lifestyle, unless of course, you are filthy rich, and you can employ others to do the upbringing for you.

Germany's population is just fine, it doesn't need immigrants unless they bring with them skill sets desperately needed by Germany. In which case, you are talking about quality immigrants, immigrants of intelligence and who are ready to fall into step with German culture almost right away. Let's extend this to the whole of Europe. Europe doesn't need just any immigrant to up the population, it needs quality immigrants.

Immigrants that are uneducated, having no skill sets, unable to speak the language, and expressing a stone age culture at odds with other cultures, especially the one they are trying to get to, are not required, Europe can do without that type of immigrant. Yet, that is the exact sort of immigrant awash throughout Europe, because they have been allowed into Europe by the EU, and we have all seen the damaging results. It is very destabilising to European countries...in metaphorical terms, you don't want a Neanderthal to mate with an Homo Sapien, it doesn't help either species.

It would be better if the EU helped to make the immigrant's country a better place to live, so that they don't have to migrate out of economic reasons. Eventually, however, people will migrate for climate reasons, and they will definitely need our help then. How and in what way, I don't know.

Developed countries are seeing slight reductions in their populations because intelligent people don't produce large families, they have families that they can cater for equal to their means of support. Third world countries produce large families without having the means to support just one child adequately. Do you believe developed countries to be obligated to developing or non-developing countries? I certainly don't, not for economic reasons anyway.

As the years go by, these are issues developed countries are going to have to deal with. They can't help everyone. So my question once again is...are you willing to drastically reduce your lifestyle to aid people from other lands? It is only going to get worse. I predict that some countries will start shooting at people massing at their borders trying to escape from war, disease, and climate disruption. Do you ignore the plight of your own people in order to help immigrants, because you cannot aid both?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Who made those stones? Rulers of Justice? Not flippin likely. People who just want to control everyone else and kill them off so they have more of everything. The people who wish this stuff are Mentally disturbed and need to be taken down.

We are born into a collective.

Trying to deny or defy this is pretty ridiculous.

Annee, you always were extremely reasonable. Obviously "freedom" as defined by the libertarian is inconsistent with a survival strategy for the human race.

DBCowboy, think of it like this: you and 999 other people are on a small cruise ship that is being buffeted by huge waves. If everyone is free to act on their own, survival instincts will lead them all to run away from the incoming waves, tilting the ship precariously and perhaps causing it to sink. If they accept leadership and work together to balance the distribution of mass, they may be able to survive the waves. The reality is that many individuals with similar motivations acting independently can cause horrific outcomes in physical systems, in markets, etc. Coordination and cooperation are the key to survival, and the individuals must cede freedom of action in order achieve those goals.

a reply to: muzzleflash

In case you didn't know it muzzle, your tax dollars have been going to third world couples as UN incentives to not have more than one or two children. I bet you never had a clue how your money is being redistributed around the world.

This is a fascinating thread, good job muzzleflash at keeping it civil and productive.

My feelings are that in the "Age of Information" a vast majority of people are highly uneducated. This leads to exploitation by those that are highly educated and greedy little bastards. We live in the time of a corporate empire. One that has successfully hidden behind the US government for far too long. These guidestones give us something to aim for. We are obviously very far from implementing these ideas, but they are not impossible, and for the true optimist, even inevitable. They do not call for genocide or mass sterilization, the first point, I feel, merely for thinking about how many damn humans are alive and the unbelievable stress of that many people trying to live in harmony. Technology has been developed for profit for centuries, not for the benefit of the masses or for elevating humanity. Straight profit, at the cost of Children's lives, the cost of the forests, the oceans, even the air. Money as it stands isn't even real, just numbers on a screen, yet millions of humans are denied clean I water, adequate nutrition, shoes, and proper shelter.

If you haven't heard of/read 'Red Mars' by Kim Robinson-Stanley I highly recommend it. It is Sci-Fi, but incredibly well written and highly plausible.

I'm fairly cynical, but I've begun to try and shift myself to being the change I want to see. So, I refuse to believe anything is impossible, including the necessary paradigm shift away from consumer capitalism. Change, especially the radical change needed to make a difference scares a lot of people, but I blame that on the mass indoctrination the US has propagated through the education system. There are so many solutions to so many problems, all it takes is the desire to make them happen. I believe in you.


AYWW.org

2020AYWW:

If you haven't heard of/read 'Red Mars' by Kim Robinson-Stanley I highly recommend it. It is Sci-Fi, but incredibly well written and highly plausible.

With your good intentions noted, I have to say that there is nothing remotely plausible with regard to terra-forming our nearest neighbour planet, Mars. Space travel is out of the question for many many decades, at least another century. I am sure you realise just what it takes to put a person into space, the vast endeavour required. We have learned a lot regarding space, but to actually terra-form the surface of another planet, and to colonise it, our technology is not sufficiently advanced enough for that.

What the Georgia Guidestones' authors sought to show was the mess we are in now. The group of 400 who paid for the monument are simply highlighting a utilitarian idea. Population growth has been a concern for at least two centuries, and various plans have been thought up to try to deal with it, and they range from the voluntary adoption of having no children, to the absurd so-called elite plan to cull the human race down.

In societal terms we are fragmenting into the take up of differing and highly contentious ideologies. Our societies are no longer as ideologically bonded as they used to be, we are no longer singing from the same page, we are no longer agreeing to the type of society we want to be. Politicians do not know what to do or where to turn in order to placate the nations they belong to, so the only conscientious focus they have is the economy, which has helped the rich get richer, and the poor much poorer and practically disenfranchised from many aspects of society.

There is no society that can survive the fragmentation of the overarching ideology that glues it together. Our survival as a species literally depends on the health of the ideas we think and the consensus gained on them. Right now we are all like compasses pointing in different directions, when we need to be pointing in the same direction.

You can forget climate change or global warming. You need not be concerned with the spread of viruses, and as for cometary impacts, they are not a problem...ideology is everything, and if we do not have one we can all agree to, we fall, and right now we are precariously balanced at the edge of the abyss. That is the reality of the situation we are in, and that is what we need to deal with firstly, because all the other concerns we have depend on this.

We either come together ideologically, or we fall together through ideological fragmentation.