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

a reply to: crayzeed

yup - i is still waiting for details of an acceptable method of achieving the 500M number

originally posted by: Blaine91555
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.

We are in perpetual denial and do not recognize our double-thinking and double-dealing. Rather than recognize a wrong we might make, we vehemently seek to find Justifications so we can continue thinking we are always "right". Though clearly just admitting we were wrong, making a few quick corrections, and moving forward would make us "right" in reality. Pride is a dangerous thing if not tempered.

And having honest and transparent Charity with great wisdom and foresight is the very essence of a civilized being. The fortunate recognize that they too could become the next victim of Fate and find themselves less fortunate tomorrow, and so will sympathize and empathize with those less fortunate than themselves. They will find Mercy and express Grace towards others for their own good as well as those they help. This will bring them Joy through a very "Spiritual" process because they will feel Redeemed and Justified.

We also need clear leadership that knows exactly what it's doing and can explain eloquently how and why certain paths or ideas are the best way forward. I realize that not everyone is endowed with exceptional skills while it is clear some people were seemingly born to rise up and lead the charge.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Would you want to live in my version of Utopia?

Why would I want to live in yours?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555

1 law.

Don't infringe on the rights of others.

I don't embrace anarchy, but nearly.

That's a good principle of living but it's not a clear law that can remedy all of the complicated situations we find ourselves in from day to day.

For example a land dispute. You and I both claim and believe that this acre of land is our rightfully owned land.

With your 1 law, there is no remedy. We will either have to surrender to the other or battle over it and allow might to determine who's right.

I can tell by the way you frame what you are saying that your Heart is in the right place, but that you are very uneducated about civics and law in general (no offense).

Perhaps you should read:
Two Treatises of Government by John Locke,
The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes,
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli,
The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine,
and even The Federalist Papers by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton.

These are just introductions to modern political theory on government, and I highly suggest finding a few larger works that cover the entire history of both Legal Theory and Philosophy and just digging through them and learning as much as you can about their arguments and the developments that came from their dissemination.

Read books about the US Constitution, and ones about how the Supreme Court has interpreted it over the years. You will see great triumphs and significant flaws, everything.

I also highly suggest looking into International Law history from Hugo Grotius to "A Memory of Solferino" by Jean-Henri Dunant which led to the first Geneva Convention and then to all of the conventions and treaties of international cooperation of modern times.

Did you know that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the "Law of the Land" in the United States courts and can be argued successfully via the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution (Article VI clause 2) ?

Can you explain and describe the differences between "Rights, Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities" ?

This subject can take years to really wade into even if you study it on a daily basis. It's very complex because there are so many things to learn about - but since I know your Heart is in the right place, you should just follow your Heart and it will lead you the right direction and you'll learn what you need to know as you go. Just keep an open mind and remain critical.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

Would you want to live in my version of Utopia?

Why would I want to live in yours?

That doesn't even make sense.

There is no "my utopia" and "your utopia".
It must be "Ours".

If there are "versions" that differ, and if those "versions" end in some being Happy and others being Miserable, if it benefits some but not others, if it is a dream to one yet a nightmare to another - than it isn't really a Utopia after all now is it? It's just more of the same that we have always had historically with some winning and some losing.

A "Utopia", in this sense, is to be a society where we ALL win a place at the table, where we all are respected and given an opportunity to really contribute our talents and uniqueness to the human family.

There are certain basic principles that work and others that don't in terms of facilitating an atmosphere conducive to that type of truly Utopian paradigm. Having 'useless officials and countless laws' is a clear example, there is not one human that can argue that these things work or are desirable. This is incredibly basic and a "generalized guideline" rather than a specific mandate or an absolutely precise directive.

Explain to me how "having meaningful laws" is my Utopia and not yours? Explain how it isn't helpful to everyone across the board of all social, economic, racial or ethnic, cultural, religious, class, sex, etc etc backgrounds? You can't. No one can argue successfully in favor of nonsense or against absolute reason cited with clear precision.

Am I a tyrant for telling you that 2+2 = 4 ?
Should we all decide it could mean any number we want?
Does anything mean anything anymore?
Can't we just agree on something simple here?

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: andy06shake

My quote of the day:
"No point in living in a utopia if we have to sacrifice our humanity to achieve such." Wonderfully put.

There's no point in going swimming if there's no water in the pool ?

There's no point in sitting down to dinner if there's no food on the table?

There's no point in posting a comment if you've got nothing to say...oh wait a minute.

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?

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: Annee

So then how could the goal of responsible breeding be accomplished? Without legislating it. Without any laws.

Education.

The Guidestones call for an "Age of Reason".

Intelligent informed people make less mistakes than an uneducated one.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that book.

I will review it soon, it looks like it applies perfectly to the topics being discussed herein.

Much appreciated for your significant contribution!

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: andy06shake

No point living in a utopia if we have to sacrifice our Humanity to achieve such.

exactly why their not Rosy Cross

guide stones are not Rosy Cross
they benefit another group
and
"their" plan for paradise

R.C Christian
the real one Johann
would be ashamed

What's your great plan than?

Are you aiming for countless armies of government officials and libraries full of inane laws that govern every aspect of our lives down to how long I can leave my faucet on when washing my hands?

Or do you actually agree with most if not the vast majority of these guidelines espoused upon the stones?

Please be specific and back up your reasoning, I'd love to hear a better plan.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Annee

Suppose one Man's idea of Utopia is another Man's idea of hell.

Again I must reiterate that this supposition is illogical at it's core.
It is a cliche and does not pay heed to the actual meaning of the terminology employed.

Today we already live in this paradigm, where one wins while another loses.
Where one gains significantly at the expense of many others.

Wealth disparity is an excellent way to frame this argument.

One guy, let's say a multinational corporate investor with billions of dollars, or maybe a Saudi royal, or what have you, has endless wealth at his disposal. He can enjoy all of the good things in life, the highest quality goods, any drug, countless women will do anything for him at his beckoning, he gets only the best medical care, no laws seem to apply to him because he simply owns the system by virtue of wealth and power, etc etc.

He has everything. This is more than his Utopia, it's his Heaven! Utter intense pleasure almost all the time with very few limitations aside of the laws of physics and mortality itself.

And what is it for many of us? What about the people living on the streets or in the ghettos, or even the 'working class' that gets up and works all day to barely make it by and hardly save up a few coins for a rainy day, hardly able to sleep enough at night, suffering fairly often if not continually? What is this to them?

It is the current modern Dystopia, far closer to Hell than Heaven.

Of course this doesn't apply to all rich people or all poor people. Everyone makes of life what they will and circumstances of Fate and Destiny dictate many aspects of that. But you get the general idea.

Today is already one mans Utopia and one man's Dystopia. Absolutely without a doubt.

A "True Utopia" = Where we all win together and all gain together. Where we share in a jointly operated quasi-Heaven.

originally posted by: Willtell
A couple of points:

One is that we have come to realize that humans are ruled by negative archetypes and positive archetypes.

When there is an eruption of the negative archetypes some insightful people can see it coming.

So we have repetitive and constant eruptions of these inner negative archetypes

Therefore it seems to me that will always be the case until these negative archetypes are resolves within the human spirit

They’ve been with us since the beginning. When the negative ones get out of hand, we have a Hitler, Stalin, Crusades, an ISIS, Ghenges Khan, etc…
..
This always brings forth some of the positive archetypes to oppose such rumblings of the human experience and usually the evil gets defeated or worn out or absorbed, though not before causing untold suffering to many human beings.

That’s the message of the DIA pictures somewhat.

That's a fair analysis and I do agree.
We will always have cycles of negatives and positives, the pendulum swings back and forth.

I think that you're right that the DIA murals depict a message along these lines, that humanity faces repeats of the same story over and over again, but just at an increasing scale of intensity as our technology increases and the population size explodes upwards.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Annee


The real problem is fresh water sources, without a significant break through regarding desalination projects and efficiency our future populations wont have anything to drink.

I agree that you are absolutely correct in your assessment that the population challenge is really a technology and logistics challenge, and I fear you are correct in your earlier post when you lamented that humanity is in a lot of trouble very soon because we are apathetic and are not seriously addressing these problems as we ought to be.

In reality most people work all day at meaningless jobs and then seek entertainment or relaxation for the remainder of their time when they aren't sleeping or focusing on upkeep.

And if we keep going down this road mindlessly expecting everything will always be fine like it is now, we are in for a big surprise when the water stops dripping...

We are in for a hell of a roller coaster ride as a species, and it will get wild sooner rather than later.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Today is already the 1%ers utopia. Considering the only thing the rest of us have going for us by way of challenging there system of rule is our numbers it may not be the best of ideas to reduce said numbers until the power bases of our respective societies are rather more evenly distributed.

A true utopia where everything is provided or free and the majority of the citizens needs and/or requirements are catered for runs contradictory to the paradigm humanity currently follows. For all we know living in such a manner may breed stagnation and eventual extinction.

Earth will never experience such a thing while we are bound to only one planet. We need to get all of our eggs out the one basket before social equality becomes a viable prospect. And even then there will still be some who feel they are entitled more than others, after all absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we as a species are a very corruptible apex predator.

originally posted by: testingtesting
To depopulated the world all we need to do is have a one child policy or offer cash to folk who get the snip for the good of all.
Only take a few generations I think.

Although that's a very good suggestion to consider implementing, I think it is one prong of a larger multi-faceted approach that we should consider employing.

I like approaches that come at a problem from multiple angles and address all sorts of aspects of it.

Example:
My house is cold and I just got back from vacation.

I'd turn on the primary heater, light the fireplace, maybe get out a space heater to put next to my seating, and wear my coat. This hits the problem from more than one angle, and as the problem dissipates (the house warms up), I can begin ending some of these approaches. I'll take my coat off, turn off the space heater, and then turn down the primary heater to a more average level that I'd like to maintain.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Maybe 500m get to stay on earth and the rest get deported to mars as slave labor?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: testingtesting

It's easier if we just kill undesirables.

I understand it was done last century with mixed results.

I'm pretty sure we have all agreed that these are not acceptable ideologies.

The goal here was to solve the problem without creating entire new nightmares and destroying everything we cared about in the process. Slave labor camps and mass killings just isn't acceptable.

Please think out of the box here...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: crayzeed

yup - i is still waiting for details of an acceptable method of achieving the 500M number

I am still waiting for you to learn how to read and write properly.

This thread is full of 'details of an acceptable method of achieving the 500m number'.
Many people have made good suggestions and they are here to read.

I'm about tired of your insolence ignorant ape, I think I may need to take the velvet gloves off to handle you properly. It hasn't been working as evident in our last encounters. Perhaps you respond better to iron gauntlets and that is what you need to shape up and get back on your game??

I am going to be very firm and harsh with you if you don't clean it up.
This is unacceptable.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

Bare with me, Logic is subjective, to continue along the economic avenue and divert our races potential into keeping the bankers going is Illogical.

I think I'll need to address your post in a few sections...

First bear is to hold and bare is to be naked or exposed.

Secondly...

The existence of logic and it's rules is an objective fact.
Logical arguments are based on premises.
These may be objective facts or subjective experiences.

And thirdly, no one suggested we 'keep the bankers going', and I think everyone except the bankers themselves can agree on that. The Guidestones never suggested we do any such thing. In fact the general outline of it would seem to be heavily in favor of eliminating that type of power structure because ultra-wealthy bankers are essentially a type of 'useless official'.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Now the rest of your post...

A lot of the suggestions you offer in terms of better agriculture and architecture or energy creation and management are valid although perhaps the details of those suggestions are up for debate. I agree with you that we need to work on those areas extensively.

About 'killing the population' I agree we shouldn't kill anyone because that's unlawful and immoral. Number 1 doesn't say we should kill anyone either, that's an automatic assumption based on unfounded pretensions.

I do not think that your argument about genetic diversity and divergence or drift is entirely valid and I do not believe it is well supported by reasoning or science. A breeding population of 500 million is significant and unbelievably diverse. I am not sure what you believe humanity needs that this amount cannot offer in terms of genetic material.

And lastly;

I see NO logic in the florida guide stone's but I do see desperation in those that believe they offer a solution, what I see in them is an Ideological view point mired in the extreme right wing view of a distinct minority of over entitled rich people and misguided right wingers whom believe they can create a utopia for there select ideological chosen slaves and master's by mean's of mass culling and sterilization of there own species, in fact from a species perspective they are a very serious disease that threaten's the species they plan to target and that make's them a pathogen upon that species, a parasite not a symbiote.

Not only do I not see logic in the Florida guide stones I've never heard of them. Could you link me to them?
/sarcasm

But seriously I don't think you should be able to see a 'right wing minority view of ultra-wealthy tyrants that seek to enslave mankind and purge the population via outright murder' in the Georgia Guidestones. That's all read into it without much substantiation and is purely conjecture.

I get it that Alex Jones or a few other 'alternative media sources' told you that's what it meant. But I'm here to tell you, explain in detail, and show you why that's not necessarily true. I realize that Alex Jones and similar have a very deep narrative but their track record and methodology of expressing their views is highly flawed and just like the MSM they are increasingly dependent upon revenue generated by advertisements and product sales.

AJ has an incentive to make it sound as extreme and frightening as possible because he's selling a specific narrative, and anything that could be remotely construed as fitting into that narrative will be adopted and merged into it, especially if it's somewhat mysterious because those types of targets usually don't blow up in his face (it's a stone monument that can be interpreted in various ways after all).

I highly suggest becoming your own information guru and asking your own questions and seeking your own answers. Just listening to AJ (or similar) fill your mind is self-defeating. I'm not saying ignore him I am just saying stop overdosing because his world view isn't perfect especially considering he has a financial incentive to sell a specific view that he's entrenched himself in as a career choice. It is not his incentive to give you a second or third well reasoned opinion that might just possibly put his narrative deeply into question.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Annee


yer the final frontier
some how the star trek template for human civilisation works
exploration

Star Trek offers a lot of great lessons and proposes a lot of great solutions to many issues we face.

It can also be entertaining.
I do like the conceptualization of an exploration paradigm.

Although I liked DS9 and TNG a lot, 'Enterprise' with Scott Bakula might have been my favorite series.
They were all good and most of the time well written and acted. (Not always though, lol)