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

a reply to: muzzleflash

It *could* be. But you are making that assumption.

A lot of people made all kinds of assumptions about what "Hope & Change" meant too, just like they are about "Make America Great Again."

Basically, I guess I'm saying that we all look and see what we want to see. Most of us are inherently suspicious because the builders of this monument have been less than forthcoming about it.

You want to look and see Utopia so you read awesome-sauce into it. What proof do you have, aside from you own speculative dreams, that your interpretation is any more or less correct than ours?

a reply to: Annee

Perhaps try reading to understand instead of reading to reply?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: muzzleflash

Authority, government cannot grant freedoms.

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

I'd suggest you take a look at the history of the Congo to see what happens when anarchy and freedom from authority becomes the reality. Only through the rule of law and only with an educated populace can peace or a good life even exist.

a reply to: Blaine91555

1 law.

Don't infringe on the rights of others.

I don't embrace anarchy, but nearly.

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: Annee

Perhaps try reading to understand instead if reading to reply?

Apparently my thinking is different then yours.

I am not required to think as you do.

Or should I make this a more personal attack?

"Just more of the same." More of people forcing their beliefs (beliefs, not faith) mind you, on other people. Via force, or threat of. That should have been the fairly obvious meaning of my "Just more of the same" comment. It would just be replacing one form of failed government with another that will have to use the same methods.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm willing to concede we are strangled with needless regulations and laws directed at non-violent offenders. I think I see your point.

originally posted by: jjsr420
"Just more of the same." More of people forcing their beliefs (beliefs, not faith) mind you, on other people. Via force, or threat of. That should have been the fairly obvious meaning of my "Just more of the same" comment. It would just be replacing one form of failed government with another that will have to use the same methods.

And as I said: "My thinking is different then yours".

Practical real "need" in a collective.

Belief is not relevant.

a reply to: Annee

Awww. Did you feel personally attacked by a rebuttal suggesting you read to understand?

That is part of reading comprehension; understanding what you read. I didn't use any obfuscated language, or complex linguistics. My statement was, at least in my opinion, fairly straight forward.

I guess to pick at just one point several people have endorsed here.

Look at stopping people from breeding unwisely. We can all agree that it's a bad idea to have people just popping out kids willy nilly, but how do you propose to stop them?

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.)

Do you simply take children away from unwise breeders? ... and do what with them?

Do you enforce abortion on unwise breeders? ... just look up the brutality that has happened in China due to this type of policy.

It seems to me there is no good way to stop unwise breeding, especially the sort being talked about here, without using some good, old-fashioned, gun-to-the-head strong-arm tactics to do it.

Now, given that at least one of the voices speaking out in favor of this stoppage of unwise breeding is the OP who also envisions the kindest, most gentle, and most Utopian system EVAR under this same NWO system.

I just see some contradictions started to creep out in all this.

a reply to: ketsuko

What happens to a person or people who say, "I want more children"?

Are they punished?

If so, by who?

What is the punishment?

originally posted by: jjsr420
a reply to: Annee

Awww. Did you feel personally attacked by a rebuttal suggesting you read to understand?

Pretty sure you meant it to be.

Have you noticed I've rarely replied to any of your posts?

Moving on . . .

a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm talking about the real meaning of the separation of church and state (that state should stay out of religious affairs) - not the misconception that has it backwards (that religion should stay out of state affairs).

e.g. How people can practice rites that are otherwise illegal / religious exemption from the law of the natural mind / spiritual exemption from group think.


To clarify my above post: a one world government can only come to exist by destruction, either of souls or sin.

How about this: how about instead of trying to manage death and destruction, you think about how to managing life and growth?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Its not so much the ideologies and sentiment that the Georgia Guidestones contain that i have a problem with.

It's how "they" wish to implement the process, not with a bang but with a whimper.

Another thing attempting to implement such social engineering processes on such a vast scale worldwide may damage the Human gene pool irreversibly or have other unforeseen consequences we have yet to relies.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: muzzleflash

Its not so much the ideologies and sentiment that the Georgia Guidestones contain that i have a problem with.

It's how "they" wish to implement the process, not with a bang but a whimper.

Could you explain that please?

a reply to: Annee

Nice assumption, but incorrect. If I wanted to insult you, I'd just do it. No obfuscation needed. No hiding behind a fake smile.

I don't really care if you do, or don't respond to me. (You will likely imagine an insult in the next sentence aswell) because, as I've discovered, those who choose silence do so because their arguments are weak, and flimsy; easily shown to be erroneous. Just like your "What I do with my body" is factually incorrect in regards to reproduction, assuming of course you were talking about induced abortion.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

How about this: how about instead of trying to manage death and destruction, you think about how to managing life and growth?

Life and growth can be the cause of death and destruction.

I think the issue with the guidestones, as well as most NWO-type globalists in general, is that it is approached with short-term, "old world" style thinking. Frequently, under the guise of perceived long term, revolutionary concepts.

That topic alone could probably make a thread on it's own (albeit with few participants). Simply, to truly make a social evolution, we can't really sit down and list out guidelines to unequivocally follow when they come solely from the "old" culture. Our cultural and social systems haven't really evolved for so long, that we have been inundated in that thinking for generations.

In the end, many of the guidelines may end up moot, irrelevant, or at worst, detrimental and destructive to the evolution itself.

Lets take the first item, a population of 500m. That alone could change drastically due to everything from technological advances to lifestyle changes. Shifts that will actually be an intrinsic, inevitable part of the process.

I guess we could go down the whole list in a similar fashion, but the short of it is that we can't really know how it "should be" until we get there. Thinking that we can somehow know the tenets precognitively of an age and society that we literally know nothing about.. may be an exercise in narcissism and hubris more than anything.

Conversely, it might be a beneficial thing in the case of some sort of near extinction level event that strips our social systems and technology back to the "stone age."

a reply to: Annee

I am speaking to him spiritually.

Move along.

a reply to: Annee

Population reduction in any meaningful manner that leaves infrastructure and the land intact would require the release of a biological agent specifically tailored to wipe out around 9 people in 10 of the population hence the "not with a bang but a whimper" statement.

Birth control and current death by disease/war/accident/old age just would not cut the mustard. No point living in a utopia if we have to sacrifice our Humanity to achieve such.