-- Posted by medjai at 2:55 am on June 6, 2009 The Georgia Guidestones. "The Georgia Guidestones are a huge granite monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA. A unique message comprising ten guides is inscribed on the structure in eight modern languages, and a shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient languages' scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs. The structure is sometimes referred to as an "American Stonehenge". The monument is almost 20 feet (6.1 m) tall, and made from six granite slabs weighing more than 240,000 pounds (110,000 kg) in all. One slab stands in the center, with four arranged around it. A capstone lies on top of the five slabs, which are astronomically aligned. An additional stone tablet, which is set in the ground a short distance to the west of the structure, provides some notes on the history and purpose of the Guidestones." The richest people in the world have come together and established a monument as an oath for a movement, they swore it in their respective modern languages with physical inscription into the stones, and then either as a vow of loyalty or a mark of tribute they swore them again in the most influential of ancient languages, that they would reduce the world population from five point six billion to a mere 500 million. Their justification that it needs to happen based on irrational prediction of the population to come. At the time they were reported on, its clear the media was encouraging them, writing bullets to their proposal like "Alternatives - By most reasonable estimates, by however many years, the population will hit eleven million, and 95% of them will be extremely poor and in undeveloped nations." In other words the media reported that ultimately of course the nobles were right, there is no alternative. But why label that as an alternative? To demonize standing against it. And so in the background as new knowledge emerges, we've just discovered a "warrior gene" that supposedly has a "significant" decision in whether or not an individual will be violent, research states it can predict if you will be in a gang, and even amongst gangsters, who the most violent of them are. They identified some native New Zealand tribe, very racistly stating that the Maori's were not at fault for their aggression (calling them savages), for they are genetically predisposed to it (genetically subhuman), is all. A study that will certainly propagate further racism and dehumanization of them, and an acceptance of the idea that we can be labeled by our genetic predispositions, in which case you have a perfect vehicle for absolute eugenics (the reduction of the population to 500 million). These are people so powerful you probably couldn't even know their names, and these were the principles that the stones laid out. THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES > Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. ---- The wish to bring down the population to 500 million, and then control when people are born and die to balance it with "nature." Since obviously 500 million is ideal so you can't go above or below it. > Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity. ---- Planned Parenthood, and it already exists and you've heard of it. Diversity is genetically beneficial, they support it. > Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason. ---- Rule passion. Rule faith. Rule Tradition. Dictate your own judgment on how you rule them with "tempered reason." > Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. ---- Directly mirrors "avoid petty laws" with "fair laws" and useless officials" with "just courts" (two statements down) and therefore extremely well written and clever. > Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. ---- It follows that if a truly fair justice is established, and useless officials dispensed of, the world should unite under it, and anyone who doesn't want to should be forced to, as they are fighting against their own self-interest. > Avoid petty laws and useless officials. ---- Laws that people disagree with and find unreasonable should be punished by fines and minor slaps on the wrist (speeding on the freeway) and sometimes people should even just straight get out of them. In other words, actually be as just as possible so that no man could both claim to be in his right mind and argue against you. > Balance personal rights with social duties. ---- Controlling the status quo of rights versus privilege, and to accept that since you have a perfect society obviously protecting that comes before your own direct self interest, so you must sacrifice whatever rights might impede on your support of the way things are. > Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite. ---- This is directed at the prime movers, what they should aim for, it's not saying they should have society focus on these, as society is drugged, and will be more drugged as time goes by. > Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature. ---- Just as your parents don't want to fuck up their home, they don't want you the consumer to fuck up theirs. As though designed to resemble a re-enactment of Moses' discovery of the Ten Commandments, perhaps because of a history we couldn't imagine or just to signify how serious they were. Their commandments are different but in their self righteous writing command an what appears to be an equally egalitarian ideal. Again, the eradication of five billion people, but really much more than that because they also have to fight against the reproducers. In case you didn't catch the incredibly clever symbolism, they wish to unite humanity and bring it back to the stage it was once at at the peak of the building of the tower of Babylon. When according to the myth, God destroyed the tower, split up humanity, and divided the language of humanity among many tribes across many nations, crippling us mortally, and bringing us into an age of war and criminals and mankind's excessive suffering. I mean they outright state they will. It is located on the Highest point in Elbert County. (from the wiki) I could not find out who paid to have the stones mounted, or who's property they were on, other than that it was all done under an alias, and that the alias name had historical significance and was a nod to ancient Rosicrucianism, and by proxy the Fama Fraternitatis (I say by proxy because RC Christian was anonymous though he was named). Fama Fraternitatis Thomas Paine, who was established the idea of a minimum income (wage) The Georgia Guidestons Some call it the ten commandments of the antichrist, some very influential people call it a call to a better future. What do you think it is? They were defaced by vandalism some time ago, but nothing has been done to remove the vandalism. -- Posted by medjai at 3:00 am on June 6, 2009 Oh, today I read about the "warrior" gene, just discovered, which is said to be capable of determining whether or not a person will be in a gang and whether or not a person in a gang will be among the most violent or not. http://current.com/items/90162518_boys-with-warrior-gene-more-likely-to-join-gangs.htm Naturally, our aggressive nature is gene-determined, and so this is just another demonstration of why eugenics on such a grand scale (the systematic and secret murder of 5,000,000,000 people) to achieve a more perfect humanity. -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 3:12 am on June 6, 2009 I've read about the guidestones before, and I don't find the ideas put forth in them all that unreasonable. In the way they bring a wholeness to the world, if that term is applicable. I would love to see common laws established for a world-wide standard, to bring an end to the haziness of multinational crimes and the such. Though not mentioned, I think a universal language would fit in nicely with the guidestones, and I would love to see plans for a universal language come to fruition. -- Posted by medjai at 3:30 am on June 6, 2009 Do you realize the immensity of attrition you are agreeing with, AncientRights? This is no small statement of purpose. -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 3:51 am on June 6, 2009 I do realize the attrition of it. I have stated before on this site that I believe there are a few too many billion people on the planet, as seen here, and I wouldn't mind it I were one that had to go.   I'm aware of what would need to be done to start moving this agenda forward, and a great example of it is fluoride in public drinking water, we are all drinking a carcinogen and smiling about it. It isn't all that far-fetched to me to put in more programs that are "for the public benefit" in order to streamline the process. -- Posted by medjai at 4:23 am on June 6, 2009 Then they are succeeding. -- Posted by SpM at 4:49 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from Ancient Rights at 11:51 am on June 6, 2009 I believe there are a few too many billion people on the planet, as seen here, and I wouldn't mind it I were one that had to go. Would you mind if you were the one pulling the trigger? Imagine that queue of 5 billion people stretching out into the distance, and walking up to you one by one to have you shoot them in the head. Let's say it takes about 5 seconds for a man, woman or child to shuffle up, look you in the eye, and get his or her brains splattered over the surrounding area. Let us further say that you need no rest, no sleep, and no nourishment. You can stand there shooting people at a rate of one every 5 seconds for every minute of every day. There are 86,400 seconds in a day, in which you could shoot 17,280 people. There are 365 days in a year, in which you could shoot 6,307,200 people. Divide 5 billion by that number, and you get a grand total of 793 years. Would you be willing to stand for eight centuries butchering human beings at a rate of one every five seconds? Would you be willing to shoot your mother, your father, your siblings, your partner and everyone you have ever known in the name of the Master Plan? -- Posted by medjai at 4:58 am on June 6, 2009 A better question is would you mind living in a society where ultimately who you could breed with or whether or not you could breed at all was a decision and a right you had to surrender for the sake of society and all? That's the extent of the bullet (commandment) that states: > Balance personal rights with social duties. This does not mean yield to a red light in traffic. It means you will exercise your rights insomuch as it is in line with the good of society. Ensuring the ideal genetic (meaning if you are not born ideal while you are treated as an equal in society in all ways other than your right to breed (so you can't complain and claim maltreatment or oppression). Would you be willing to refuse to love another just because society tells you it is wrong. It is the theme of the most famous romance in history, only in that story, they would rather die than lose it. Of course we won't be at such a direct stage for some time, and so as of now more primitive and brutal tactics will be used, death through poverty and disease, warfare and genocide. Abortion will completely win over the opposition, they will phase out the negative connotation of the homosexual relationship, etc. -- Posted by SpM at 5:18 am on June 6, 2009 Being unable to breed freely does not mean being unable to love or associate freely. -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 5:26 am on June 6, 2009 Shooting a man in the head every 5 seconds to control the population would be pointless. The average world-wide birth rate as of 2002 was around 141 people being born per minute, or around 2 1/3 people per second, so this would do nothing. The only effective way to accomplish the goal would be to introduce agents to decline the birth rate, whether it were on purpose or a side effect. There have been reports of men who have gone sterile from carrying a cell phone in their pockets for years, drinking fluoridated water has been shown to lower IQ, there have been investigations into vaccinations containing mercury, children's toys have been show to contain lead. Simply by having a wireless router in your home you can be exposed to an upward of dozens time the normal electromagnetic waves encountered by a person without one. Modernization is bringing with it a plethora of situations that could lead to declining birth rates and lowered cognitive thinking, leading to a more directable mass. To gradually decline people into a stupor so that they wouldn't fight back. To raise people from birth, and essentially brainwashing them that the established rules must be followed, this is how it would be accomplished. People believe what they are taught, because once they are taught this, they know this. If your liberties are subject to permission of the government, well, so long as that is all you know, you will be content. Not a sudden takeover, but a gradual phase over generations to instill what the "master plan" needs, slowly lowering the birth rate and educating people into a manageable direction. -- Posted by SpM at 6:08 am on June 6, 2009 It was a hypothetical rendering of the situation designed to cut through your abstract rhetoric. It is one thing to wax lyrical about vague solutions and incomprehensible numbers. It is another to imagine yourself looking your best friend in the eye and then shooting him in the face because you think it might be necessary for the survival of the species. I would have thought that were glaringly obvious. -- Posted by medjai at 6:13 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 5:18 am on June 6, 2009 Being unable to breed freely does not mean being unable to love or associate freely. Correct, however if you were not able to breed with a specific woman, you would not be allowed to have a romantic association with her either, because for instance if you were say physically sterilized and she wasn't, and she was ideal and you weren't, she would be wasted. So yes, if you were considered an invalid, you would be able to have relationships with fellow invalid's of the opposite sex. Ancient Rights you are correct, they are extraordinarily patient, and only plan to have the population lowered to 2 billion by 2100. I have seen no estimate for the time frame of the 500 million ideal, but would imagine it to be something like an additional fifty to 100 years. -- Posted by SpM at 6:20 am on June 6, 2009 A woman could be impregnated with sperm from an authorised donor and continue to be romantically involved with a sterilised male, assuming he was considered fit to assist in raising the child (if familial structure still took that form). -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 6:23 am on June 6, 2009 It was obvious that it was just to get me to imagine the numbers of people that would need to be "shot" in order for this to be accomplished. And I would shoot a friend, a sibling, a parent to save the species, or at least I would like to think I would have the resolve to do so. I chose to respond the way I did because no real violence is needed. Only time is needed. -- Posted by SpM at 6:31 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from Ancient Rights at 2:23 pm on June 6, 2009 It was obvious that it was just to get me to imagine the numbers of people that would need to be "shot" in order for this to be accomplished. And I would shoot a friend, a sibling, a parent to save the species, or at least I would like to think I would have the resolve to do so. Why do you offer such absolute allegiance to a taxonomic grouping of apes? -- Posted by medjai at 6:42 am on June 6, 2009 The system is designed in such a way as to create the illusion that it cannot be rejected by anyone in their right mind both rationally and morally. Additionally, the average person would never believe it, as they believe such grand ambitions to be impossible, that no one would actually try it, let alone pass them from generation to generation until actual completion. -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 6:44 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 8:31 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from Ancient Rights at 2:23 pm on June 6, 2009 It was obvious that it was just to get me to imagine the numbers of people that would need to be "shot" in order for this to be accomplished. And I would shoot a friend, a sibling, a parent to save the species, or at least I would like to think I would have the resolve to do so. Why do you offer such absolute allegiance to a taxonomic grouping of apes? I stated I would do so to save the species. But I would give my allegiance to the men behind the scenes, but to the ideas of it all. A government effectively unifying man, a world court to replace war. This is just my interjection, but a universal language. If you could unite man instead of having him owe his allegiance to his country, to his family, or a religion, but to the species itself. To preserve the world so that it will always be around. It is buying the future with calculated movements instead of letting events pass as they please. -- Posted by medjai at 6:52 am on June 6, 2009 Before a World Court could truly be established there would need to be an incredibly significant and tremendous loss of life. I am speaking of a world court that literally holds authority over EVERY sovereign nation, or claims to. -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 6:55 am on June 6, 2009 I would assume that the decline in total population ranging in the billions over the course of a few centuries would be enough to spur governments to start consolidating with one another, but the idea of a court that actually holds that power is the kicker. I don't see if happening unless the group responsible had deeply infiltrated every known government, and even then it is a long shot in the dark. -- Posted by SpM at 6:56 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from Ancient Rights at 2:44 pm on June 6, 2009 I stated I would do so to save the species. But I would give my allegiance to the men behind the scenes, but to the ideas of it all. A government effectively unifying man, a world court to replace war. This is just my interjection, but a universal language. If you could unite man instead of having him owe his allegiance to his country, to his family, or a religion, but to the species itself. To preserve the world so that it will always be around. It is buying the future with calculated movements instead of letting events pass as they please. You are very difficult to talk to. If you must insist upon avoiding all direct questions via semantic quibbling, let me rephrase: Why do you care about the species as a whole? -- Posted by Ancient Rights at 7:04 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from SpM at 8:56 am on June 6, 2009 Quote: from Ancient Rights at 2:44 pm on June 6, 2009 I stated I would do so to save the species. But I would give my allegiance to the men behind the scenes, but to the ideas of it all. A government effectively unifying man, a world court to replace war. This is just my interjection, but a universal language. If you could unite man instead of having him owe his allegiance to his country, to his family, or a religion, but to the species itself. To preserve the world so that it will always be around. It is buying the future with calculated movements instead of letting events pass as they please. You are very difficult to talk to. If you must insist upon avoiding all direct questions via semantic quibbling, let me rephrase: Why do you care about the species as a whole? I suppose the simplest answer would be sentient thought. I believe the human race is capable of amazing things, if we don't destroy ourselves before reaching the pinnacle of what we could be. -- Posted by medjai at 5:40 pm on June 6, 2009 It's really lame that only two people felt confident enough to respond to this, or among the people that were, only two people thought it was interesting. -- Posted by SpM at 9:08 pm on June 7, 2009 Quote: from Ancient Rights at 3:04 pm on June 6, 2009 I suppose the simplest answer would be sentient thought. I believe the human race is capable of amazing things, if we don't destroy ourselves before reaching the pinnacle of what we could be. The capacity itself is what amazes. Our brains are more complex than anything in the known universe, and our subjective consciousness has the remarkable ability of imparting meaning and value into an otherwise dead and arbitrary universe. We do not have to do anything, we do not have to become  or achieve anything, in order to be worth celebrating. And yet you would wipe out 5 billion humans with their remarkable minds all in the name of an invented ideal. You would destroy 5 billion sources of value in order to achieve a state of affairs that is only valuable because you say it is. Whether we exist for another 1,000 years or another 1,000,000, we are an ephemeral blink in the grand scheme of things. There is no one in the sky tallying up our knowledge of the world and waiting to pat us on the back if we come to a certain apex. There is no high score to be reached and there is no collective consciousness striving for it. We are conscious as individuals and we are significant as individuals. Every member of your 5 billion can validly claim himself or herself to be the most important being in the universe, and you think the "future of the species" justifies extinguishing them. Collectivism denies the real experience of consciousness. Once you or I are dead nothing matters. Once any individual dies nothing matters. Striving for the continuation of existing consciousness is striving for the continuation of meaning. Destroying existing consciousness in the name of meaning is absurd. -- Posted by iamironman at 9:33 pm on June 7, 2009 I'm pretty sure I've heard of that. But Elbert County isn't too far from me. Red county = Elbert. Black dot = DeKalb(Me) -- Posted by barnabas at 12:48 pm on June 8, 2009 Quote: from medjai at 7:40 pm on June 6, 2009 It's really lame that only two people felt confident enough to respond to this, or among the people that were, only two people thought it was interesting. I was too entertained by watching SpM and you argue with this guy.   -- Posted by medjai at 5:02 pm on June 12, 2009 Quote: from iamironman at 9:33 pm on June 7, 2009 I'm pretty sure I've heard of that. But Elbert County isn't too far from me. Red county = Elbert. Black dot = DeKalb(Me) You should drive down and take a picture. It's worth seeing, it's like the American Stonehenge (but not as cool as the real thing). -- Posted by iamironman at 3:05 pm on June 14, 2009 I'm driving up to NC next month. I wonder how out of the way that would be. -- Posted by The Oath at 1:18 am on June 26, 2009 I didn't take the time to read all of the posts, and this may be late and of little relevance, but Sir Karl Popper said it best: "We must not argue that a certain social situation  is a mere means to an end on the grounds that it is merely a transient historical situation. For all situations are transient. Similarly we must not argue that the misery of one generation may be considered as a mere means to the end of securing the lasting happiness of some later generation or generations; and this argument is improved neither by a high degree of promised happiness nor by a large number of generations profiting by it. All generations are transient. All have an equal right to be considered, but our immediate duties are undoubtedly to the present generation and to the next. Besides, we should never attempt to balance anybody's misery against somebody else's happiness." -- Posted by medjai at 5:58 am on July 1, 2009 I think that's pretty badass actually.