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

The idea to limit population is not a bad idea and we don't need to kill a single persion

Just limit it to 1 child per 2 people than once a number where no one is in need is reached make it 2

Yea there are downsides but what bad people do shouldn't influence a idea for the better

But no one would ever agree to 1 child ... I set that limit to myself ... I fell I can raise care for and in general be a better parent to 1 child opose to 2

I'll come back in 17 years and let u know if it worked

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

Do you forcibly sterilize them? (I know Annee spoke out in favor of stopping unwise breeding but also wants equal rights to include the control of her "woman bits." Seems to me those two goals are mutually exclusive.).

No no no.

They were separate paragraphs and thought on purpose

Practical sustainability. Irresponsible breeding affects the entire globe and natural resources. It takes resources from others.

Legislating a woman's body mostly because of religious belief - - - is not about practical sustainability. (I intentionally did not elaborate because the "A" word tends to derail threads).

No, it doesn't matter where the impulse springs from the two thoughts inhabit the same mind.

If you give a woman complete autonomy over her woman bits, then you allow that she might use them for what you consider unwise breeding because you gave her that choice along with the freedom to murder her unborn in the womb if she chooses. I know you like to call it pro-choice, but you can't call it pro-choice if the only choice you are really talking about is the choice to murder the kid rather than bring it to term.

Let's get real.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we label it with sustainability or religiosity when we do it. The end result is the same - If you decide to limit a woman's unwise breeding, then you are curtailing her freedom to use her woman bits in a way she might choose. It's just that on your end you are telling her she can't use them give birth and calling it sustainability rather then religiosity, but you are still taking away her freedom to use her woman bits. Don't then cloak yourself in righteous sanctimony by claiming she has freedom because she can choose to abort instead of being forced by the state to do so.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't agree.

And I am a woman.

I read all the comments so far but I'm tired and will just come back tomorrow and get back into it...

a reply to: muzzleflash

the big problem with tennat # 1 is :

a - it will take a very long time to impliment [ via acceptable doctirines in birth control and reduction of population growth ] - esp as all current trends are reducing infant mortality and extending median life expentancy in almost all countries

b - acceptable doctrine - clearly does not work in the real world - as evidence i cite the chinese " one child rule "

this leaves 2 otions :

i - wait and hope for a naturalistic " depolulation vector " - that we can niether prevent or mitigate - ir giant meteor or untreatable epedemic

which in my opinion is silly and unrealistic - hey certain cultists have been waiting for jebus to return for 2000 years - its not happening for them

and pinning the worlds hopes on " giant meteor 20** " is just as silly

ii - bite the bullet and kill 7 out of every 8 [ or a reduced factor to balance " losses " by acceptable means ]

thats why tennant #1 - sticks in people throat

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: dashen

And who exactly gets to be in charge of this Grand Plan?
Who gets to choose the members of the 500 million club?

Hahaha, an army of Alex Jones clones...

Since 5,6,7, and 8 address your question of "Rulership" (by inferring a Constitutional Government in essence)...
Someone didn't read the O.P. !!

You don't even realize you actually agree with the gist of this.

What's really funny is he records videos under that bridge. That's actually why it was so easy to photoshop.

500 million is arbitrarily designated. This is why they don't have a source, because the reasoning behind it would face real criticism and then the mysterious rocks would suck.

500 million in the State of Texas could cause a hole in the Ozone with pollution being isolated to a single spot. Clean energy could change the concept of pollution entirely, despite billions.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Hey! I'm on a train at Union Station. LA

Will get back to you when I can.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't really see humanity advancing as a whole without globalism, honestly I don't, but we're so deep in this hole of greed that I don't even think we can implement it without those who regulate / implement it rigging it from the start. And even if we DID avoid that little hitch, we would have to abandon our humanity just to get to that 500M goal. It's a great idea on paper, but I sometimes wonder if it's too late.

originally posted by: spite
a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't really see humanity advancing as a whole without globalism, . .

Me either.

It's the natural progression of evolution.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spite
a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't really see humanity advancing as a whole without globalism, . .

Me either.

It's the natural progression of evolution.

Good thing Evolution isn't real to the majority of people against Globalism.

I honestly don't see it happening without a stupidly-large milestone, like a new Spacecraft or New Power Source something. Then it will be instantly embraced without issue. I'm not saying there is any specific advancement to globalization, just that people are stupid and won't accept it without something to literally point at.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spite
a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't really see humanity advancing as a whole without globalism, . .

Me either.

It's the natural progression of evolution.

Good thing Evolution isn't real to the majority of people against Globalism.

I honestly don't see it happening without a stupidly-large milestone, like a new Spacecraft or New Power Source something.

Or the internet.

a reply to: dashen

i think in this hypothesised utopia that he is talking about, there would be no leaders and total transparency with all knowledge shared, it is clear to me that if evolution doesn't head in this direction by default then we are most definitely being held back by some unseen hidden hand. so to speak i believe that depopulation should be done under a NWO, all you would have to do is limit each couple to 2 children, the amount of people that cant have kids or only want one child not to mention the kids that dont make it into adulthood, this would bring the population down quickly, to me i see a future where we all look the same due mixing to a universal colour, we would have one language, with one belief system, and that belief would be in the whole...... you know like ants!!! Our consciousnesses will be connected.
I am amazed when i see people that think evolution has stopped now and we know so much, we cant evolve anymore............... if we couldn't evolve no more then we would start to die out just like pandas, the stressors of life are there by design to make the organism stronger..... but thats just my take on my reason for being..... so far.

AnalogueDigitalVirtualEnlightenment

originally posted by: jjsr420
Considering Humans, generally speaking are self serving, and greedy the GG isn't feasible. Few things though:

1. What if not enough people want to go to these space colonies? All you have left are coercion, or force. How else, without using either coercion, or force could bringing the pop down work?

2. Abstinence has been proven to not work time, and time again. People won't wait. Not to mention that abstinence is generally a tool of the religious. How would people really be convinced to view reproduction responsibly? Without force, or threat of.

3. Obviously many will not agree with living by the GG. How will those people be handled? Via force? War? Just more of the same.

1) Incentives and education is far better than coercion or force.

2) Abstinence has not been proven to 'not work', there are many people around the world who are living examples of it's effectiveness. Some people wait some don't.

There are a lot of women who are either pressured into it or even forced and have little alternative but to succumb. Also abstinence isn't a tool of the religious per se - anything can be a tool for anyone to achieve something - but in this instance it's a natural human proclivity in a civilization because it remedies tons of problems and prevents massive dramas.

I was abstinent until I met my wife. I wouldn't say it was easy or difficult, I just didn't have enough interest in the women that wanted me to do anything about it.

I believe that I viewed reproduction responsibly because I was very well educated and given tons of freedom by my grandmother who raised me - and though she was old fashion in her ways, I was able to see the wisdom in it by choice because she certainly didn't force me to do anything except get up and go to school in the morning. I had no rules or curfew or anything, you might want to think long and hard about that.

3) Those who don't want to live by the GG would be people who want wars, want to create oppressive laws over every little thing, want to destroy the environment, don't recognize human dignity, and lack integrity. They will be the ones trying to use force against others to become domineering and destroyers of peace and tranquility - so yes, if necessary, self defense against them could be justified. Perhaps rehabilitation therapy could aid the troubled and education is the best preventive measure to approach this problem because violence is simply not the way of this vision of the future world.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

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

Respectfully. . . .no.

I'd rather have all the negatives that come with more freedom than the security that comes with less.

Well I technically have the freedom to come in your home and take whatever I want and if you get in my way, I have the freedom to eliminate you.

Is that complete anarchy really the world you want?
Or do you prefer a Social Contract (the Constitution) to sacrifice certain freedoms in exchange for security and a stable productive society that can focus on advancement and prosperity??

I'm pretty sure you understand a balance between Rights and Powers is a absolute necessity and that we as dignified citizens of class and culture are certainly disposed to duties to each other and to society as a whole, not because we have to do these things but because we are compelled to do them out of Grace and Honor.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I couldn't read your entire opening post.Whatever these stones are saying,
bottom line, is the forced reduction of the surface population by any means.
The population kept at around 500,000,000 is a more manageable figure for
someone or something.

I posted on this not a day ago. Let me really enlighten you. The Georgia Guide stones were set up by a group with an agenda to push. They make them mysterious by "who's putting them up", "what deep knowledge they impart," We agree with their ideas". They are a modern thing. Just because they use stone to impart their agenda it is NOT Stonehenge, it is not holy wisdom. Yet there are an awful lot of people that are "worshiping" them.
Also let me make perfectly clear, the group behind this BS is the Eugenics movement. All of the tenets are Eugenic orientated but with a very big difference. They are only showing you the "good" bits.
When they have enough groundswell support they will start to introduce the rest of their agenda like forced euthanasia for old people , disabled, people with low intelligence. They will only let certain people reproduce, people with high intelligence, only what they choose as healthy people. The list goes on. Don't believe me? Go and Google Eugenics and read for yourselves. But don't believe that they have died out, they are alive and well and pushing their agendas quite regularly. Just open your eyes and see, a little law here, a little law there, a steady drip, drip trying to get their way.
I could write way, way more but it would be to no avail as all of the majority of people seem to agree with them with "Oh the world is over populated so we have to do something about it" BS. That's the nice way of putting "we want to kill so many millions so only the best remains" because we are the best.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Someone already tried to play the "anarchy" card.

If the only freedom you see is anarchy versus your definition of utopian freedom, then please, make sure I'm one of those that you kill for your "utopia".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Government, authority abuses freedoms.

Constantly.

Individual humans abuse freedom whether they are government officials or if they are a homeless guy on the street.
But not all people are like that. Some are, some aren't.

It boils down to education, and in this instance, having a code of Honor and Ethical Conduct and practicing it through discipline and dedication to core principles is the primary issue.

If it is more important to me to maintain my Honor by returning a man's billfold with 250$ in it, though I may only have 6$, because I prefer to see myself as a Great Man of Value and Virtue - than I will always return his property and I do not need a reward or a thank you. That is because I am proud of my own actions and know I am attaining my self-image and I am content with my own satisfaction and esteem.

Just because someone else has no care for themselves and will hurt others for a temporary and fleeting gain of little consequence and have no moral qualms with that choice, does not mean I or you should ever stoop to that level. We are to seek renown rather than infamy, and we are to strive towards good deeds in secret as well as in public eyes.

We all make mistakes, but repentance matters.
I know I am not an abuser and I will never become one.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

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

So you hate American society?

What are you trying to say here?

You think we should burn the Constitution because it grants powers to an Executive, a Legislative, and a Judicial branch of government that acts as controlling authorities to enforce artificial constraints on individuals in society via the delegation of power through both the Contract itself and our elected representation?

You're living in a version of Utopia right now, the "Great Republic", it's only a mess because we are ignorant and apathetic and consent to all this madness or become part of that madness. The primary issue here is that even college students are poorly educated in most instances.

We certainly could use a restructuring of various aspects of society, from foreign relations to statutory codes to educational methodology and reevaluate our goals and our means to them.