Georgia Guidestones; Another Perspective

1 – Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. Some suspect this alludes to genocide or depopulation. Where in this single sentence do you find anything related to killing off the majority of humanity? I plainly see an ideal, one with which I agree on general principle, by which we have surpassed our ability to abide. That said, population is becoming a problem. We see massive movements of people all over the place and it really hits home as we see our countries invaded day by day. Tell me we are not overpopulated. Go ahead, I will wait.

2 – Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. Who in their right mind would have an issue with securing our future by smartly and rightly reproducing to improve fitness? I have an issue with the use of the word “diversity,” but this could be linked to the current misuse of the term by the Globalists. If you can discount this for just a minute, you might be able to embrace diversity as I do – people with a variety of talents, skills, and abilities – rather than the absurd idea of diversity of race, ethnicity, creed, religion, and all that woke bullshit. If we take back our language and define words to include lost meanings, this statement is agreeable to me.

3 – Unite humanity with a living new language. I am not so sure about this one and I reject it on its face. It smacks of one-worldism to me. We should be doing the opposite and embracing the “diversity” (See? I can use their words to our advantage, too.) of our heritage. Race, ethnicity, nation, and tribe – these are all different, possessing as they do their own worldviews, religious beliefs, traditions, culture, and language. People with huge differences can still interact on some levels. When you cram everyone into a multi-culti, mongrelized society, the fault lines really manifest themselves. For these reasons, I reject this as it is written.

4 – Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason. Tell me how this one is unreasonable? If we let emotional aspects of our humanity rule us, we are all women at that point. Reason and logic should temper us all. Passion, faith, tradition – these all have their places and should serve as tribal or national pillars for a common people, but they should not override reason and logic. You see what emotion does and how it manifests itself with female and soyboy outbursts in protests and demonstrations. Are we not better than this? If your answer is “yes,” then why would you disagree?

5 – Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. How is this offensive? I would want definitions of the terms “fair” and “just,” but on the surface, how can any rational person oppose this? The ideas of “fair” and “just” will differ from people to people, nation to nation, tribe to tribe, but this is no issue, for the only ones affected are those within the groups themselves. The only issue comes when people attempt to force others to adhere to their laws, courts, and ways of life. Absolutely no issue with what this one says or how it is written. Tell me how I am wrong. Go ahead.

6 – Let all nations rule internally, resolving external disputes in a world court. This one is a bit squishy, as it incorporates both good and bad elements. First, nations SHOULD rule internally. This is nothing more than a family taking care of its own and not interfering with other families and their ways of life. As for the “world court,” well…we see how that has gone. Yet how else are external disputes to be resolved? This is the realm of diplomats, representatives of individual nations. I remain cautiously in agreement with this statement, though complete agreement would require details of how the world court would run, who would form membership, and the like. The concept is an ideal; putting it into practice will be difficult. But if every nation agrees on the concept, then it should be put into use.

7 – Avoid petty laws and useless officials. This is a no-brainer. We do not have to look far to see the consequences of each. I will not belabor the point other than to say that “petty” and “useless” can be used in a variety of ways, depending on the definition. Once those terms are defined and agreed upon by the individual nations, then they can be used as a guide to run and man the nation with quality personnel. Globalists do not have a monopoly on this one; in fact, they need petty laws and useless officials to stay in power. Why would we oppose this ideal and allow them their authority?

8 – Balance personal rights with social duties. At first glance, this made me cringe. The term “social” has so many unsavory connotations, but if we can get past what that word has come to mean and return to its original essence, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this balance. You as an individual have rights and these can – and have been in a variety of ways – be outlined and agreed upon. But as a member of society, you also have duties. The details of this latter bit depend on the particular society, so this can be as problematic as it is enlightening. We have duties to ourselves, our families, our communities, and to our nation. Can you deny this with a straight face? If you can, tell me how you contribute to society without embracing some kind of social duty. I will wait.

9 – Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. Do we really need to quibble about this one? Whether you are a Christian, Deist, Heathen, Buddhist, follow The Mysteries, or any of the aforementioned variations – essentially, unless you are an avowed Atheist – you should be able to accept this as written. There is nothing wrong with prizing truth, beauty, and love as but one vehicle for seeking harmony with the infinite, no matter the form you believe it takes. None of these are counter to the way things should be and I would suggest that without them, no society could long flourish. You may say that Western Civilization is not flourishing, but it did at one point and still does to a much smaller extent thanks, in part, to these virtues on an individual level.

10 – Be not a cancer on the Earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature. Finally, we reach the last one and I find it quite appropriate. What is wrong with not destroying our habitat? What is wrong with not respecting, appreciating, and upholding the natural world and, I strongly believe, Natural Law? I will tell you what is wrong – nothing. Do Globalists embrace these ideals? Yes and no. They spout these ideals as a means to gain and maintain control. As a result, they do not mean them as we do, as we must. To truly embrace them is to uphold and revere them.

The tally for me is 8.5/10, which is a passing score of 85%. If you will recall, I rejected #3 in full and #2 in part. How do you score your perspective?