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

originally posted by: elysiumfire
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.

I am aware the time-line for making the premise plausible is beyond our current, and near-future acceptability, perhaps I have too much faith in the advancement of technology in the coming century.


Ideology is definitely a huge problem, being in a constant state of conflict on an almost entire global scale is holding us back a species without a doubt. I feel that massive disinformation and general attitudes of apathy about honestly educating oneself have fed this current state. If most people believe in false/selective bias towards history, most people aren't going to understand the context in which our modern society is developing. We live in such an incredible time, and yet how many people stare endlessly into screens avoiding any meaningful contact with other humans?

This is where the small governments point comes in, I think. The federal US government has overstepped its bounds by far and continues to do so with impunity. If the states were to be treated more independently and worked together more cohesively, I feel great progress could be made regarding social issues. The community is breaking because people are choosing to ignore their neighbors until extreme crises happen and force them to help each other or face incredible hardships trying to survive on their own.

I agree very much with what you said, perhaps my head is a little high in the clouds, but I want to believe in the best future we can create.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Nothin

Thanks for this thought-provoking thread.

Could you please explain: how the 90% of Human-Beings, not on Earth, are no longer a part of Humanity?

Why do you use the term: NWO, when it is a known code-word, (at least on ATS), for the 0.1%ers, Bilderburg clans, and their endless quest for more for them, and screw everyone else?

You're welcome.

I think all humans are part of Humanity. I made the assumption that the guidestones referenced Earth based civilization and that it did not preclude additional human populations off-world. I hope that is a reasonable jump to a conclusion. You asked a good question though.

Whomever wrote the guidestones should reword or explain why they shouldn't reword it, to address your keen questioning. It's clear I, for the sake of writing a simplified thread and playing devil's advocate against a very popular belief on ATS, make some strong assumptions contrary to the assumptions popular here for the sake of promoting argument and provoking intellectual discussions.

I used the term NWO because it is vague and non-specific, but also because I knew that it would generate controversy by exploiting the common misconception that it references a specific when it in fact does not. My comparison was with the word UFO which is taken to mean aliens when it does not in fact necessitate aliens. I was utilizing an exploit to generate controversy so that the topic would be exciting enough that someone might bother to discuss it with me.

I reluctantly admit I have to generate controversy to some degree or else I will be ignored as a boring thread creator, and I do not think that is entirely my fault - I am merely playing to the environment I find myself in. People are fickle and divisive by their own accord and I am just embracing that in hopes that I can use it against them to compel them into deeper thinking and conceptualization of big ideas so that one day I won't have to use psychology tactics simply to propel a fun discussion.

Hi Muzz.
Thanks for the thoughtful and candid reply.

As you said in another post: it seems like some folks are pulling ideal numbers for Humanity, out of nowhere.
Who really is to say what Earth can, and could support? If we spread-out into space: the numbers change.
Depends on how it's managed now, or compared to a difficult-to-attain ideal way to manage? So many factors, and possibilities to consider. It doesn't feel honest to get stuck on one cold number. And as sure as this is ATS: anyone trying to impose a fixed number, will get more questioning than approval.

Are you open to letting the number of 500 000 000 flex, as our path and situation evolves?

Are you free to consider the potential agenda of those whom installed the stones? We really don't know their agenda.

Why do you feel like you must/have-to, provoke discussion, on this particular subject?

Sorry: don't agree that: "" the term NWO because it is vague and non-specific, but also because I knew that it would generate controversy by exploiting the common misconception that it references a specific when it in fact does not"".

Has been discussed elsewhere before. Not a misconception. Is a specific, in the context of ATS.

You do not: ""have to generate controversy"".

Please do not worry about being: ""ignored as a boring thread creator"". Just be your beautiful self.

You have generated a ""fun discussion"". Other than the many comments, there surely must have been a lot of thought created, and many reading, but not posting.

Would it not be good: to have a guide-list, a set of goals, created openly, and in a transparent, public-participation, all-inclusive way, and always flexible, and never fixed. So that we may all choose together, what is best for our great-grandchildren?

Peace.

#3 is not going to happen the way the stones suggest. The way I understand #3 is that a new language should be constructed (think Klingon, Elvish, or other less romanticized conlang stuff). The problem is, a constructed language would need to undergo massive educational program worldwide. Furthermore, it would be 1-2 generations before people spoke it fluently from a young age. This is all not particularly feasible - and it's been attempted before with languages such as Esperanto which was largely a failure in this regard.

While unclear, #3 also seems to overlook that all living languages (natural or revived like modern Hebrew) evolve. Even if everyone was speaking the same language for 1-2 generations, dialectal and regional variation would eventually split the languages apart.

Finally, forcing a global language on people ignores the beauty of linguistic diversity. It also ignores the fact that many of the languages on Earth are slowly being lost to the larger, major languages anyway. The languages that exist give us insight into neurological and cognitive processes in humans - and without that data and those insights, we lose possible insights into ourselves as humans.

#3 is nice in various aspects of convenience, like talking with foreigners and traveling. But, I think it's a crappy suggestion and actually harmful to us in many ways. It also removes the beauty of listening to different accents, foreign movies, the joy AND difficulty in traveling, etc.

They, and you I guess, seek to replace God's plan with their plan, not a good idea and it will fail.

This thread became far more successful than I anticipated and generated some very intelligent responses from many members here (which I am very thankful for).

I am very busy today (and have been for a few days) working on some legal documents, but I will try to take some breaks throughout the day if possible and make some responses to the last few pages of comments that I've missed. I just read through and got caught up and am very pleased with the types of thoughtful on-topic posts I am seeing.

I will return shortly and address responses in some form or fashion.
Thanks everyone!

I find the Georgia Guidestones fascinating. I believe they are a guide for advancement. Like you said we don't have to commit genocide to reduce the population of the Earth to 500 million. Whoever created these guidelines, believes that 500 million is the amount the Earth needs to stay healthy. The rest of the population would colonize in space. Now I can see some issues with this. The population on Earth would obviously feel like they are the Elite.

I think that humanity must become united and dedicate everything we have to technology, health, science etc. It is the only way in my opinion that a civilization can move up on the Kardashev Scale. These guidestones were placed for that reason, whether they are the correct path to take, who knows.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
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.

I've never paid the IRS any taxes to my knowledge, and I'm not violating their tax codes.

I have paid various state taxes though in the states I've lived in, but those funds are distributed differently.

Moral of the story is that you can't read a book by it's cover, I guess?

originally posted by: elysiumfire
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?

That was an excellent point, and it's a reality that I have been coming to realize more and more based on real world experience.

Arguing artificial scarcity is easy if you assume we can magically stop wasting 90% of our energy and piling everything into landfills, and if you assume that everyone can be happy and that it's ok we extract all the resources we want without any cares to the biosphere.

In reality though, people will still throw trash on the ground no matter how many times you inform them not to. They just don't care. I see it everyday.

Expecting people to be jolly and cordial is also fanciful, I see the exact opposite and recognize that a major cause of their unhappiness, anger, and frustration is rooted in the types of problems overpopulation promulgates.

And in terms of mining the Earth till we have stripmines, derricks, rigs, pipelines, and farmlands everywhere, I'd have to vote no thanks on that. I'm not a big fan of masses of industrial parks everywhere either.

How many of you live in a city and face traffic jams everyday? Is it getting worse?
We are overpopulated. We don't need billions of more cars on the road by 2050, how can this be justified?

Thanks for making that post btw, it's great to see on-topic, intelligent, thought provoking comments.

originally posted by: NwoDedispU
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.

That's the common assumption I'd suppose.

But I like to question things a little more deeply, including my own pretensions and beliefs about the world around me. So where I ended up was that not only was I unsure of that claim but I also became so skeptical of it that I doubt it to a very large degree.

I didn't just jump to that, I went the scenic route and looked things over in depth.
If you review the discussion in this thread and my past activity on ATS (which is just the tip of the iceberg of my day to day activity offline), that it should be apparent that I might just have some good reasons to doubt your beliefs.

originally posted by: Grumble
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.

That's a fairly good analogy that explains why teamwork and leadership is important in a lot of situations and why unlimited freedom can become destructive.

Thanks for chiming in to clarify, I think that we really "are in the same boat" here, so to speak!
And the 'waves' are coming in strong this century...

originally posted by: 2020AYWW
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

Thanks!

I agree that poor education is a critical problem we are facing, perhaps the primary one.

It not only leads to exploitation, it leads to pretty much everything. People get angry and fight each other because they are uneducated about proper communication and diplomacy, or self-development issues like anger management or they haven't learned how to step back and rationally analyze a situation before acting on impulse and just hitting someone.

I see people complain rudely, scream and yell at each other over nothing, or just talk to themselves in mumbles that are unintelligible - on a daily basis.

I see the way people drive their car, I hear them discuss their life problems, or heck I even critically analyze the way people pour their coffee and I can't help but ask "why?!".

Why waste a stirrer and waste another minute stirring your coffee when you can just put the sugar or creamer in the cup first and then pour the coffee last thus automatically stirring it without wasting a piece of plastic (thus adding to a landfill) and burn a whole minute stirring?? I don't understand. I'll explain to them the better solution and they come up with justifications such as "I like to stir it", or "it doesn't matter". Some get upset "you do your coffee I'll do mine"...

Now in terms of using a spoon to stir, these guys will use the same spoon they stir with and put it back in the bowl of sugar getting it wet with coffee and creamer. I don't like creamer so they essentially ruined the sugar bowl. And on top of that we have to waste extra water to wash the spoon now, and you cannot save the extra sugar because it's wet you gotta just dump it out.

The point is, people are hard to educate when they commit to their ways and form their habits. I think we should realize as humans there is no reason to commit to petty things like how you stir your coffee, and that when shown a better way you should adopt it. And yes I get very peeved about little things like this because it shows me just how idiotic the world truly is and how stubborn they are when confronted with the suggestion to alter their habits to something more productive and conservative.

It's not like I'm asking people to stop smoking cigs, I understand addictions are challenging to kick, but come on all I'm asking is to pour the coffee in the cup last so it stirs by nature of physics on it's own rather than creating all of this waste.

Add up millions of coffees a day, millions of stirrers, thousands of bowls of sugar or cups of water wasted. Per day.
I am just focusing on one little tiny corner of our daily lives here. It's so seemingly insignificant yet it's such a massive outcome in the long term picture: millions of tons of wasted product and wasted gallons of water, and especially time.

Our education system doesn't teach or require critical thinking skills. It should. If it did and had been, I wouldn't get to make such a rant about coffee stirring practices and economy. People are so devoted to the most pointless traditions sometimes and are set in their ways. I keep trying to teach though...

Sorry for the coffee stirring rant, lol.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

In your reply you say that something awful would need to happen, but below in your personal tag line, it says that there is no bad in life? I'd guess you say the awful won't really be awful just a learning experience? To me it seems simpler to say that good is really good, and bad is really bad. Granted you can learn from either, but you just as well can ignore them, and repeat the same mistakes.

I think the GG’s are referring to AFTER some horrible apocalyptic era when it talks about maintaining the world at 500 million people.


Indeed with the madness by Trump and Putin talking about increasing nuclear weapons upgrades and the anti-global warming head-in-the-sand people we are likely headed for doom.


After that the world may have only around 500 million from the present 7.4 billion.


That’s the only scenario I see where this makes sense.


Though possibly a world wide bacterial plaque of some sort can also kill all those people

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You take too people away and then the environment really goes to hell.

I used to be a eco-liberal and I kid you not that video of buildings rotting and collapsing was beauty to my eyes back then. I loathed "humankind"--as I called it. We weren't doing enough. We were stupid animals. We dragged our feet leaving behind a trail of s*** wherever we went. At least, that's how I felt back then, most of it stemming from modern education and modern fears, combined with my penchant for thinik too deeply into everything.

Anyway, rejoice, as I have grown out of that phase. Maybe ti's like in Planet of the Apes when one of them says trust nobody older than 30? I am now past that mark. I still praise green or environmentally cleaner technologies, but not at the expense of modern living or forcefully imposed on the population. I believe if we're going to force green practices on business we should also work to shrink government bloat by reducing subsidies and regulation overall. Tit for Tat! Government is all too willing to not make sacrifices.

I guess my feeling now are we should have some faith in humanity, despite all its evils, for it has endured. I believe it's arrogant and naive to be so concerned with our evils. Nature might have already so easily destroyed us all with an asteroid or super volcanic eruption or something else. We're lucky to be alive and be able to examine ourselves so closely.

I think we'll work these things out with time. It'll take longer than we think. If we think it'll be 100 years, it might be 400 or more. There will be losses. I think something 99% of all species ever existing on this Earth are extinct. Species come and they go. There's no guarantee. We can't be certain we'll survive. And the outcome might be very different from what we imagine. Who's to say Earth is not supposed to be a spaceship? Nobody alive today can claim to be God. I don't think we'll let ourselves engineer this planet to that frightening extent. We have too much respect for the rest of life. So in sum, I expect more extinctions and more devastation, but I also expect unimaginable progress. Someday, we will possess the power to create whole new biotas on other barren planets. The question will be, should we? Should we spread life elsewhere?

I guess I'm saying stop being self-righteous. We don't know everything. We don't know what perfect is. Everything around us is a work in progress. Sometimes we will anger and we'll war and so on. Sit back and hesitate more. Don't just jump into decisions. I sometimes shutter to wonder what would occur when I was younger if I'd possessed too much power. Power can be the probelm, you know... like too much of it in the hands of an individual. Even governments can make rash decisions. They really are the best we can do--the sum of all our knowledge--yet they're also imperfect, like individuals.

EDIT: Sometimes events put us in a circumstance where we can't hesitate. When that happens, don't get mired in blame or despair. Much of our history was the result of intuition and it's unavoidable.

I watched a documentary about space junk last night, they predicted that the problem could prevent space travel within a couple of hundred years. Populating other planets may not be an option.