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

a reply to: muzzleflash

Authority, government cannot grant freedoms.

Lack of authority, government. . .assures more freedom.

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
One other thought that popped into mind:

How in Hades is 500,000,000 people enough to become a type 2 civilization?

Not to mention, how are we to even get all we can out of humanity by limiting human population?

How many gifted folks would be of lost if we really followed such a concept?

Space stations and offworld colonies offer plenty of additional resources and locations to populate.

And a type 2 or 3 civ is based on technological progress not population levels.
You cannot just populate to the max and automatically increase tech levels. In fact that could create a new dark age if things went badly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

Authority, government cannot grant freedoms.

Lack of authority, government. . .assures more freedom.

I'd say that affords abuse of freedom in a society.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

Authority, government cannot grant freedoms.

Lack of authority, government. . .assures more freedom.

I covered that argument in the OP.

The OP asserts that LESS government, less authority, is the way forward to a better world.
The Guidestones agree with what you believe but you were programmed to automatically reject it by the internet media outlets that aren't thinking critically or reading the entire list of 10 things.

Just read it and think about it. It's only 10 small sentences.

a reply to: Annee

Government, authority abuses freedoms.

Constantly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Government, authority abuses freedoms.

Constantly.

No.

It equalizes freedoms.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

Authority, government cannot grant freedoms.

Lack of authority, government. . .assures more freedom.

I'd say that affords abuse of freedom in a society.

That's why we need to balance our duties to each other and accept restrictions on certain freedoms.
Just like we do today to an extent with a Constitutional govt where we grant the govt powers and accept giving up some freedom to achieve a greater society.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: muzzleflash

But that's the problem with its vagueness.

That is what you read into it. Obviously, others see it as something far, far different.

The only ones who know what it really means are the ones who mean to be the architects in charge of the real agenda behind it.

That's not the point though, my point was to open people's minds to something they have been excluding from the realm of possibilities in their consciousness and get them to realize that.

Yes, but in effect, you are opening our minds to the possibilities the same way that people try to open our minds to the possibilities of communism too.

What you are talking about is great in theory, but in practice this is not how it will work out. Again, just like with communism, your premise relies on having the "right" people in power in perpetuity. This never happens even assuming you get the "right" people in power for even one go around.

Human nature being what it is, the type of person who seeks power is seldom the sort who will see things benevolently.

And even the most benign of Utopias have their dark elements.

a reply to: muzzleflash

And which freedoms are those, and what guarantees are there that if I sacrifice my freedoms that the tradeoff will not eventually become abusive to me?

And what provisions are there for me if and when that tradeoff does become abusive?

All that was required:

originally posted by: muzzleflash
#1

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

500 Million is still a huge number, it might be too many.

There isn't even a place to send people in space, let alone means to do it in the foreseeable future, therefore a massive mandatory genocidal depopulation program is the only way 'forward' in our lifetime.

In the meantime, you wanna play at utopia, see here: Second Life.

This video of it looks about right for the topic:

All that was required:

originally posted by: muzzleflash
#1

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

500 Million is still a huge number, it might be too many.

There isn't even a place to send people in space, let alone means to do it in the foreseeable future, therefore a massive mandatory genocidal depopulation program is the only way 'forward' in our lifetime.

In the meantime, you wanna play at utopia, see here: Second Life.

This video of it looks about right for the topic:

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: muzzleflash

But that's the problem with its vagueness.

That is what you read into it. Obviously, others see it as something far, far different.

The only ones who know what it really means are the ones who mean to be the architects in charge of the real agenda behind it.

That's not the point though, my point was to open people's minds to something they have been excluding from the realm of possibilities in their consciousness and get them to realize that.

Yes, but in effect, you are opening our minds to the possibilities the same way that people try to open our minds to the possibilities of communism too.

What you are talking about is great in theory, but in practice this is not how it will work out. Again, just like with communism, your premise relies on having the "right" people in power in perpetuity. This never happens even assuming you get the "right" people in power for even one go around.

Human nature being what it is, the type of person who seeks power is seldom the sort who will see things benevolently.

And even the most benign of Utopias have their dark elements.

It doesn't even address "who" is in power other than stating that people have Rights and Duties and that courts should be just and that we need meaningful laws and that there's too many useless officials.

Essentially it could be a society where power is hardly concentrated anywhere at all, or that it's changed hands often or whatever. There's tons of room here to wiggle.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

Authority, government cannot grant freedoms.

Lack of authority, government. . .assures more freedom.

I'd say that affords abuse of freedom in a society.

That's why we need to balance our duties to each other and accept restrictions on certain freedoms.
Just like we do today to an extent with a Constitutional govt where we grant the govt powers and accept giving up some freedom to achieve a greater society.

Exactly!

We are born into a collective.

Trying to deny or defy this is pretty ridiculous.

I gotta go for a few hours but I'll be back soon.

Feel free to slam me more by saying your against things I didn't say but that you think I said although I actually said stuff really close to the things you actually agree with (because you didn't read my OP very closely and you're knee jerking).

Or you are also welcome to go piece by piece and debate reasonably, or you could talk about how naive and unrealistic these high ideals seem to be, or whatever.

I'll come back later and start on page 4 and try to respond to everyone's comments.

Thanks for participating in this topic - it NEEDS to be discussed from all points of view.

a reply to: muzzleflash

When you place artificial constraints on any society, you'll need a controlling authority to enforce those constraints.

a reply to: Willtell

Only a country that is wealthy and powerful can help pull the Senegal's of the world out of the mire.

I don't think the reality that the Senegal's exist escapes most American's. The madness is in thinking that any weak, poor country can change the situation, as they simply can't.

America is hated for it's success and yet our success has greatly benefited the world as has the success of all the worlds free nations.

It's dictators and fake democracies that hold the world back. To keep control they keep their people uneducated and poor as they are easy to control. Well fed and housed people rebel, while the poor and uneducated bow down or fall prey to radical, dangerous ideologies.

a reply to: Annee

Apparently you skipped over my "Just more of the same" comment.

And you only responded to one part of my post, instead if the whole post.

a reply to: muzzleflash

This thread could start a great discussion, I'm glad you brought it up. Some thoughts I have:

We could send 90% of our population to space stations and outposts on other worlds

One issue is that to even get a handful of people to space stations or "outposts" (which haven't even been made yet) are the incredible amount of resources needed to do that.

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: Annee

Apparently you skipped over my "Just more of the same" comment.

Not sure what that means.

a reply to: Annee

I am aware that you embrace globalism and that you and I have different definitions of freedom.

Have a nice day.