slug.com slug.com

3 2

Anyone else ever hear of the Georgia Guidestones, and if so what's your take on it?
[zmescience.com]

For the most part, I think the controversy over it is nonsense.

SpikeTalon 10 Feb 7
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

never heard of it - when were they put in place and by whom? Are they on public land or private property. is the one in the pic here the only one or are there other similar structers scattered across the land. are they made of granite? are they inscribed?

0

Theyve supposedly been removed

No

3

WIRED has a good article.

[wired.com]

Whatever they are, they were constructed with deadly serious intent.They’ve been called The Ten Commandments of The New World order and seem to be an abstract edifice upon which such a thing could be constructed, whatever that might prove to be. Others have called them Guidelines for the Antichrist, which, depending on your worldview, could amount to the same thing. The whole thing is a wet dream for folks who want to sit on committees and tell the rest of us what do do. Never doubt that they are serious. And wealthy.

The first one, limit the world’s population to 500,000,000 uses a figure widely tossed around these days by folks who love to work the word “sustainable” into as many conversations as possible. What we’d do about the 3.5 billion expendables left over remains undetermined.

The second, Guide Reproduction Wisely, can’t be imagined without the presence of a Commission of Purity, or some such artifact from a brave new world. Just say no.

The third, Unite Humanity With A Living New Language, (minus all the words no longer acceptable to think or say, of course,) would seem pointless, since English is well on the way to realizing that very goal—if the thought police would just keep their grubby hands off it.

Number Four: Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason, means quaint notions like God and The Bill of Rights need to be reassessed in the light of modern thought. Modern, politically correct thought.

Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. Who could argue with that? How much you want to bet that current immigration law and our immigration courts wouldn’t make the cut.

Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. A contradiction. If you rule internally, you don’t bow to a world court. Bye-bye national sovereignty.

Avoid petty laws and useless officials. Who gets to decide? If half of us are aready deplorable, “useless” can’t be too much farther down the road. 500,000,000 just got a good bit closer.

Balance personal rights with social duties. Say good-bye to private property. Say hello to the “greater good.”

The last two are the kind of catch all abstractions that can justify any number of atrocities in the name of good intentions.

Educate yourself about Agenda 21. It’s real, it’s being implemented right in front of us and no one knows about it either. Basically it’s a formalization of the fuzzy, feel good crap expressed in the Guidestones.

The reason we’ve been losing the culture war is that we’ve told ourselves this kind of thing is the result of cranks and kooks. Those kooks have occupied academia, the entertainment industry, the media matrix and fully one half of the political landscape and turned the whole of it into a massive propaganda machine churning out the message, on a daily basis, that we are evil and undeserving of any consideration or compassion whatsoever.Maybe we should take things like this a little more seriously.

A return to rule of law might help.

@Josf-Kelley
If we’re so fond of the rule of law, how is it that we let it slip away from us with our eyes wide open?

It’s always easier to defend your territory that it is to try to reclaim it.

@Edgework

Why do you have to turn things into a personal attack? You don't know me. What is your goal when you claim that I am "fond of the rule of law"?

If the information offered is useful, which I think it is, then either use it or let it slip away, but really, why drag me down with you?

@Josf-Kelley

Ease up, Dude. I said “we.” As in you, me and all of us who long for the rule of law to return. I don’t expect you to read my other posts, necessarily, but we’re you to do so, you would find a continuing theme is how we, the conservative right, through negligence, laziness, willful blindness and complacency, let the ideals we profess to cherish be stolen out from under us, in plain view. This didn’t happen over night. It’s been a decades long process.

And, just to bring things back to the immediate moment, why would I not assume you are fond of the rule of law? It was your post, fer crissake. My question: why would you assume a personal attack when mere grammar and syntax gives no justification for doing so.

Don’t look now, but I think we’re on the same side.

@Edgework

I'm eased up, dude. You don't know me, you don't speak for me. That is obvious to me, as I am not at all fond of having to deal with criminals at all, therefore I am not fond of rule of law, it is a necessary duty, like cleaning the toilet. Are "we" fond of cleaning the toilet?

And you don't speak for me when "we" let something slip away. I go to jury duty, I learn the actual law, I work at offering data that describes in detail the law, and I work at offering data that describes in detail the opposite - counterfeit - version of the law.

I also ran for congress in my district, again like cleaning the toilet. So how is it that you assume this authority to speak for me? I'm curious, and at ease in my curiosity.

"This didn’t happen over night. It’s been a decades long process."

Again, you do not speak for me. The process is as old as mankind, and in America, the process you speak about has been going on since 1774. The criminals gain power, taking over government, counterfeiting it, and those who know better are over-powered by falsehood, threats of violence, and displays of violence perpetrated by the criminals who take-over governments. If you have only discovered the recent (decades) advances down the road to hell on earth created and maintained by criminals posing as the government, then you are scratching at the surface of a very long progression that took a major step toward despotism in 1789.

"My question: why would you assume a personal attack when mere grammar and syntax gives no justification for doing so."

If you were to leave me out of the discussion, and if you were to discuss the topic instead, then you would not risk making errors in your assumptions concerning my personal feelings. Is that not clear?

"Don’t look now, but I think we’re on the same side."

I think so too. My guess is that the number of people you personally "suicided" is the same number of fucks I give as to your personal feelings.

@Josf-Kelley
Wow. All that?

Thanks for sharing.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:74957
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.