The Georgia Guidestones

TalkieWalkie

I'm interested in thought from both sides on this. No need to be bitchy, nothing is being suggested, yet. Obviously the focus is on number one of the, shall I say, commandments. Who wrote it, who commissioned it, does it relate to depopulation (agenda 21) and so on.
Enjoy, be nice


The Georgia Guidestones is a large granite monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA. A 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.



History
In June 1979, an unknown person or persons under the pseudonym R. C. Christian hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build the structure. One popular hypothesis is that the patron's pseudonym may be a tribute to the legendary 17th-century founder of Rosicrucianism, Christian Rosenkreuz.

Inscriptions
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the structure from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

espinolman

Pleiadians are into maintaining population to certain limits on their planet , from what i have read , so maybe they have something to do with it .

Jeboa Safari

Sounds like the work of an idealist hippy did, to me. Nice sentiments

Mahatma coat

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055489323&highlight=georgia+conspiracy&page=4

heres a thread we had about this before, there is some information in there, but mostly like a lot of threads from that time it descended into a bickering mess rather quickly, I think it gets back on track somewhere areond page 6

Darlughda

First heard about the Georgia guidestones on this forum.
Fascinating and creepy. I tried having a gander through the thread that MC linked but only got through about 7 pages.

Does anybody know what is the significance of the site/area they are located? Is there any particular history there?

Supposing they were funded by an individual or group for the purpose of giving guidelines to people in the future, rather than being erected as some kind of artistic hoax, what is the significance of the location?

Yitzhak Rabin

I have no clue who put the stones there. But I can't say I disagree with them.

Obviously the first stone is going to be a contentious issue. But, I think its an inevitability. So we either try and put measures in place to reduce the population, or we will be forced by the environment, through famine and starvation to reduce to around that figure anyway.

And no, that does not mean I am in favour of culling populations. It simply means putting incentives, monetary, or otherwise, to people who have only one child, or don't have children at all.

Also, I wouldn't, necessarily, be against the sterilization of extremely violent criminals and rapists.

espinolman

Why not go to space , build space cities , put them in orbit around the sun !

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

Why not go to space , build space cities , put them in orbit around the sun !

Yes, that seems logical and feasible. I can't think of 1000 things wrong with that statement.

The attached rolleye emoticon isn't enough.

espinolman

But you just have to set up on the moon and use the materials on the moon to build the space cities .

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

But you just have to set up on the moon and use the materials on the moon to build the space cities .

I can't tell if you are being serious or not?

Regardless, its off topic. What do you think about the guidelines on the georgia guidelines stones?

Richard tea

1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Where did they get that bull**** figure from. Open to correction here but is it true that every man, woman & child could be given an acre of land to live on and that total land mass could fit into a space the size of Texas?

I view the guide stones along the same lines as the Denver airport situation

Undergod

Richard tea wrote: »

Where did they get that bull**** figure from. Open to correction here but is it true that every man, woman & child could be given an acre of land to live on and that total land mass could fit into a space the size of Texas?

A quick google and online convertor seems to indicate not.
Texas is 268,820 sq miles, which is 172,044,800 acres. Not nearly enough.

The Continental US is 3,119,884 sq miles, which works out to be 1,996,726,201 acres; still under 2 billion.

alastair

Richard tea wrote: »

Open to correction here but is it true that every man, woman & child could be given an acre of land to live on and that total land mass could fit into a space the size of Texas?

Not quite - Texas is 268,601 sq miles. you would need to fit 24,000 people per square mile assuming a world population of 6.5 billion. If there's 640 acres in a square mile, that's 37.5 people per acre. - which would further suggest that you'd need something in the ballpark of the landmass of the USA and Canada (with all the lakes etc removed) combined to provide an acre for everyone on the planet. And each of those acres would need to be fertile - so you'd need to swap the deserts and high mountains for something a bit more productive.

Richard tea

Ah I see, Maybe I got the equation wrong, ill try and dig it out.

Yitzhak Rabin

Irregardless. Space isn't the problem. Its resources. I would say we could support a population of more than half a billion indefinitely. However, the situation we have now of a population of almost 7 bn increasing almost exponentially is completely unsustainable. Even if we weren't increasing, a stable population of 7 billion is probably unsustainable with the current levels of technology.

I think as a species we need to seriously look at the problem and not just accuse anyone who brings it up as a mass-murdering nazi who wants to murder all the citizens of earth except the elite.

Richard tea

Ok got it wrong, skip to 58 sec for the Texas bit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY&feature=channel

Richard tea

So lets assume 7 billion is unsustainable. How many years would it take to get that figure down to 500 million. 50 years, 100, 300 500 a 1000 years

Somebody really does not like the stones http://exatanews.blogspot.com/2008/12/georgia-guide-stones-vandalized.html

Yitzhak Rabin

Richard tea wrote: »

So lets assume 7 billion is unsustainable. How many years would it take to get that figure down to 500 million. 50 years, 100, 300 500 a 1000 years

Well, if we take a really simplistic and rough back of the envelope model, whereby couples only have one child, and anyone who has two children, is cancelled out by those who have none. Lets say that each generation from birth to death is 100years.

Then we would be down to a population of 3.5 billion in 100 years, 1.75 billion by 200 years, 850 million or so by 300 years, and would reach the "target" of 500 million by about 375 years or so.

Now, obviously this is an extremely simple model.

There is a far quicker way to reduce the population, which is to do nothing about it, and bury our heads in the sand, and await for the environment to do its work and reduce the population drastically through famine.

This has happened innumerable species in the past. We are lucky in the fact that we have the ability to foresee these problems and try and deal with them less savagely than nature.

Richard tea

yekahs wrote: »

Well, if we take a really simplistic and rough back of the envelope model, whereby couples only have one child, and anyone who has two children, is cancelled out by those who have none. Lets say that each generation from birth to death is 100years.

Then we would be down to a population of 3.5 billion in 100 years, 1.75 billion by 200 years, 850 million or so by 300 years, and would reach the "target" of 500 million by about 375 years or so.

Now, obviously this is an extremely simple model.

There is a far quicker way to reduce the population, which is to do nothing about it, and bury our heads in the sand, and await for the environment to do its work and reduce the population drastically through famine.

This has happened innumerable species in the past. We are lucky in the fact that we have the ability to foresee these problems and try and deal with them less savagely than nature.

I knew I should have paid more attention in maths class:rolleyes:

TalkieWalkie

Richard tea wrote: »

So lets assume 7 billion is unsustainable. How many years would it take to get that figure down to 500 million. 50 years, 100, 300 500 a 1000 years

Somebody really does not like the stones http://exatanews.blogspot.com/2008/12/georgia-guide-stones-vandalized.html

Lol, the stones said so, so it must be ?

RGDATA!

yekahs wrote: »

I think as a species we need to seriously look at the problem and not just accuse anyone who brings it up as a mass-murdering nazi who wants to murder all the citizens of earth except the elite.

well said. the issue comes up often here, whether its supposed agendas of Bill Gates/WHO/NWO etc.
I don't know enough about it to put a figure on it but I don't find the idea of population control inherently sinister, which some people seem to do.

Obviously I don't think we should kill people to keep the population down (I've seen it interpreted on here before that Bill Gates etc. wants people *dead* rather than he believes a limit on the population).

To the people who find the idea of population control instantly sinister - how long do you think the planet will have enough resources to support a human population which continues to grow at roughly the same rate as it is now?

TalkieWalkie

RGDATA! wrote: »

To the people who find the idea of population control instantly sinister - how long do you think the planet will have enough resources to support a human population which continues to grow at roughly the same rate as it is now?

1000, 10,000, 100,000 years, who knows. It's more likely we will extinct our own race through war (nukes), through greed.
If we used the money/energy which we currently use for war, into solving issues facing humanity, we would never have to be concerned about the size of our population.

Population control only sounds like a good idea if war and greed sound like a better idea. It's pathetic that some folk think it's fine. In fact, it's sick.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's pathetic that some folk think it's fine. In fact, it's sick.

No whats sick is to completely ignore a problem until it results in mass exstinctions through starvation. I can tell you it is far more humane to exercise birth control than to allow a child be born into a world where this is his future.



I agree with you that war is wrong, and that in a more ideal world, we should not be wasting our valuable resources on it.

However, that does not change the fact that our population is and probably already has spiraled out of control, and its high time we made a concerted effort to overt a disastrous future.

Incidentally, besides religion, almost all war has comes down to a fight over resources, be that, food, territory, women, security. How exactly do you think that by increasing our population, will somehow lead to less war?

And just in case you try a strawman I AM NOT ADOVCATING THE MURDER OF LIVING HUMANS

TalkieWalkie

So, what should be our number 1 priority ?

Work toward population control ?

Or work toward, eliminating war ?

EDIT:

Thought you were talking about me, I use the name strawman on another forum, LMFAO

The pic you posted relates to GREED, not over population.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So, what should be our number 1 priority ?

Work toward population control ?

Or work toward, eliminating war ?

Both. What's sick about population control?

And what the hell is the following ? I didn't quote you, and I never suggested anyone here advocated murder

That was in case. Because often the response when someone raises the issue is to say something along the lines;

"The population is c.6.5 billion, how do you propose we reduce that number. I think I know how! :rolleyes:"

or "Will you be voluntaring to be culled"

or something along those lines, despite me never having suggested that I would advocate murder.

Jeboa Safari

If you want to eliminate war would you not support the nwo you bang on about so much, seen as they'd bring in a one world government, and so have nobody to fight with?

The population will fall naturally anyway if the countries get richer, people will have less children. Although I'd say at 500m people the earth would be underpopulated. I don't see how you think population control is sick, it's just as bad for people to be born into poverty and starvation and low life expectancy. What's wrong with trying to educate these people?

espinolman

The pleiadians claim they engineered the earth for five hundred million people .

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

The pleiadians claim they engineered the earth for five hundred million people .

Is there any point asking how you know this?

TalkieWalkie

At first the idea of depopulation was a conspiracy theory, skeptics said "no way, impossible". Now it is proven they say "i agree with it".

I read recently that if all the money that is put into developing weapons for war was spread out into the population we could all live the lives of multi-millionaires.

Truth is, we don't need that. We need to educate people and eliminate greed and war. Depopulation should not come into it, it's a last resort due to mistakes made by a few greedy feckers behind the scenes.

Bankers build up depths, we bail them out. Are we to bail them out again by subjecting our children to restrictions on pro creating, as they do in China. Make it a crime. (and that's looking at it in a nice way. Sterilisation is more of a reality).

TalkieWalkie

espinolman wrote: »

The pleiadians claim they engineered the earth for five hundred million people .

I have a feeling, if that was the intentions of the Pleiadians, the population would be at 500,000,000.

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

At first the idea of depopulation was a conspiracy theory, skeptics said "no way, impossible". Now it is proven they say "i agree with it".

No the conspiracy was always, and still is "OMFG TEH ELITES ARE POISONING OUR WATERS TO KILL US/INFECTING US WITH AIDS/FORCING US TO TAKE VACCINES" etc.

None of the theories put forward have become true.

I read recently that if all the money that is put into developing weapons for war was spread out into the population we could all live the lives of multi-millionaires.

Truth is, we don't need that. We need to educate people and eliminate greed and war. Depopulation should not come into it, it's a last resort due to mistakes made by a few greedy feckers behind the scenes.

Bankers build up depths, we bail them out. Are we to bail them out again by subjecting our children to restrictions on pro creating, as they do in China. Make it a crime. (and that's looking at it in a nice way. Sterilisation is more of a reality).

I have no way to verify if that is true about the arms trade and millionaires. Highly highly doubt it. That still shouldn't take away from the fact that vast sums of money are wasted on arms and munitions every year.

But this is not about war. Ending war is a separate issue. And in any case an end to war would only exasperate the the problem of over population.