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.
And the 11th, hidden under the slabs... 11. REMOVE KEBAB
Brayden Clark
Eloquent and concise. Not a single word is frivolous, nor a single one more needed.
Hunter Murphy
Wasn't that put there by some secret society type cult?
Something about A play on words on R.C. Christian ?
Christian Wilson
jewish guidestones for enslaving humanity yet again I wonder why (((they))) did not put >give us all the shekels! on those slabs of useless stone
Samuel Flores
Idk to me it sounds like it was made by a bunch of kikes and hippies on acid in the 60's.
Luis Turner
autism guidestones
Lucas Davis
What's specifically jewish about this?
Tyler Gray
i don't need to listen to hippie rocks put up by baby boomers
William Watson
They forgot to add >Don't let your nation become a bunch of faggots.
Jeremiah Campbell
What makes them autistic?
Sebastian Carter
everything
Henry Williams
What parts do you disagree with?
Matthew Lee
That's an autistic answer.
David Young
>diversity
Joshua Stewart
>They
You mean Ted Turner?
Jaxon Ortiz
The Georgia guidestones were only contrasted recently
Oliver Price
>world court >world language
No
Chase Flores
>. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. (((world court))) everything, but that specifically
John Sullivan
>diversity Makes every other aspect of the list impossible.
Aiden Jones
It's a global communist empire.
1 language. A world court system >>Implication>> Little states which are subordinate to a giant federal world government.
Tyrannically impose a limit on reproduction. What if people have a child too many?
seek harmony with the infinite? What? Leave room for nature?? --This assumes the view that humanity IS naturally a blight on the earth.... rather than being a part of the earth. It's anti-human philosophy.
Connor Torres
Fucking gnostics. There is a reason why they live in the shadows. They do not do it out of protection and trust for one another in brotherly love. They are fucking creepy devil worshipers. They have inverted everything.
The guidestones are gnostic (of the Rosicrucian kind) through and through. Bleh
Lucas Hill
They aren't talking about the Hague. They mean settling international disputes without war. You prefer war?
Austin Ross
War is the natural state of mankind.
Logan Harris
When this was written, diversity might have meant more along the lines of preventing inbreeding or diseases being passed down by having genetic carriers produce offspring.
Lucas Sanders
>You prefer war? they prefer it you burger this is why you invade different sovereign country every 5 years, like clockwork
Brody Lee
500 Million? India and China alone have 2.8 Billion, and they seem to be doing fine.
Ian Bailey
>seeking harmony with the infinite pure spineless shemalery newagery faggotry
Aaron Brooks
it also says "fair laws and just courts" which the jews aren't a fan of
Ryder Young
>Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 We're just about to start colonizing other worlds and these kikes are telling us to reduce the population. Go suck a cock. Humans will rule the stars.
Wyatt Lee
How do you settle disputes in a world court without international law? How do you impose international law without impinging on the sovereignty of states?
War is part of the human condition, it's what happens when a nation has something worth fighting for and protecting
Hudson Thomas
Everyone in the world should be able to communicate freely. A single language would facilitate that.
World court implies settling disputes without war, not a world government.
People reproduce too much, anyway. The stone says that reproduction should be guided, and that implies that a population limit really shouldn't be a problem, anyway.
Humanity is a blight on nature. We kill nature. Nature sustains us, and we destroy it.
Seeking harmony with the infinite to me is simply keeping peace among different religious beliefs. Maybe I'm over-thinking that.
I think you're reading more into this than you should be.
Zachary Long
Only because you accept it as such. Don't stop evolving.
Ryan Phillips
we won't even get to fucking mars idiot, go jerk off to star trek
Cameron Cooper
I've never invaded a sovereign country in my life.
Ethan Collins
Define it for me. What does that mean to you?
Grayson Campbell
>1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. Seems fair, and should be done.
>2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. Yes, for a more healthy species. And less abominations ---> Sandnegers
>3. Unite humanity with a living new language. We already have english.
>4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason. Means that everyone should do their culture with obvious humane limitations.
>5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. That, we do not currently have.
>6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. Should always be like that yet, some nations sure do love to stick their NOSES in anyone elses affairs. >7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. Why isn't this a thing already? >8. Balance personal rights with social duties. lol as long as this society drives on narcissism, that's not gonna work >9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. See 8 >10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature. See 8
>Were they right, Sup Forums?
Yes, they are. Of course, there will be some tinfoil hat wearing gorilla telling it's the illuminati-lizard men-biker ayys from arse, but those rules are truth.
Noah Parker
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >assume planetbound civilisation, trash 2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. >fitness, yes, diversity, no 3. Unite humanity with a living new language. >language diversification is unavoidable, unless small number planetbound on one planet, trash 4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason. >behaviour is 100% genetic, no mention of harsh artificial selection for such, trash 5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. >behaviour is 100% genetic, needing laws imply lack of harsh artificial selection, trash 6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. >impossible to hold on a multiplanetary scale, imply low numbers on a single planet, trash 7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. >lessening bureaucracy is not possible, possible hinting of bureaucracy being managed by a god-AI ? Smart 8. Balance personal rights with social duties. >highly dependant on the execution and context, will withhold judgement 9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. >spiritual nonsense, trash 10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature. >spiritual nonsense, trash
It would crash Humanity fast, the retards who wrote that are dimwits.
Gavin Lopez
>Humans will rule the stars
You say that like it's a desirable goal, when in fact there's nothing for us out there. Thinking otherwise is just hubris
Jace James
our successors will rule the stars. artificial intelligence
Nicholas Reed
You assume a tremendous amount. Why would a law governing how one nation interacts with another affect the sovereignty of each nation? They wouldn't be states, they'd be sovereign nations, just as they are now. Any need for the world court would only arise in nation-to-nation disputes. It specifically says that "let all nations rule internally".
Christopher Hall
War is a relic of past civilizations. It can be avoided. We can evolve past it. Also, war is about greed, nothing more.
Zachary Lopez
>define fair laws >define external disputes >define petty laws >define social duties >define a cancer to the earth
This is a rich person trying to virtue signal his/her way into the history books. The 500k population as rule number one was a way to get it to spread among conspiracy websites.
Ryder Bell
>War is part of the human condition, it's what happens when a nation has something worth fighting for and protecting good post, lad.
Jose Parker
>some nations sure do love to stick their NOSES in anyone elses affairs We typically use our military.
Oliver Johnson
>"We"
Are you by any chance jewish, user?
Michael Lewis
>We can evolve past it
We literally cannot. Power vacuums are a constant variable in nature. The thought that it can be fixed is the equivalent of waving a white flag in surrender. How can you cite evolution with such complacency towards the nature of life?
Matthew Rivera
That looks like the worst summer camp ever.
Nicholas Watson
I'd hate to live life with your attitude. Did you have to actually remove the shotgun from your mouth to type that out, or were you able to rest the butt on your feet?
How is leaving room for nature spiritual nonsense? Man evolved with nature present. It sustains us. If you destroy it all, you destroy humanity, too. It's science, not fairy tales.
Brandon Jackson
Why no mention of the huge bloodstain on the top half of the capstone, that cube with the numbers in the corner of one of the slabs, and the weird hole that filters light built in to the top?
Jason Peterson
It impedes nations even now with boycotts and other shit. Just look a the fucking EU. They do interfere with the sovereignty of other countries. Everyone must be a cuck walking on the line. What makes you think that in this kiketopia things wouldn't be worse?
Ryan Martin
Please, you NPCs aren't living, wading through life mindlessly, mainly using mimetism to know what you're supposed to do. The part i'll enjoy most about reforging Humanity into something useful and worthy will be ending all you "people". 2060
Colton Ross
That's a stupid statement. Knowledge is out there. Other worlds are out there. Spreading life to new worlds is exciting.
Josiah Ortiz
It is, seeing as it lasts your whole life.
Joshua Evans
Although I might not disagree with you just want to add counter points.
Langue is more than just communicating it's also the style in which you communicate. A lot of stuff gets lost in translation. Although it might be nesscary a lot would be lost if there was a true world language. Although maybe a system where everyone was taught the global language and local might be the best solution in practice not everyone is capable of learning two languages, lots of countries will just default to the global. A shit ton of culture information will be lost, books etc.
A world court over time would probbably lead to a defacto world government, even worse one that was not created with that intention in mind, see the EU as an example.
People reproduce to much yes but one of the tough questions has always been who is reproducing to much and who decides who gets to reproduce and who can not. Reproduction is something that is at the core nature of free will. If government decide who gets to have sex with who and how often and who gets to reproduce. Remember some religions see it as a sin to even use protection. Is it a free society at all? Also a shit ton of societies depends on the children to boot the take home pay and look after their parents into old age, who will do that? Government? Oh just what we need more reliance on government.
We are also part of nature and grow a lot of stuff, maintain a lot of nature. People have been around for quiet awhile and a lot of what we think of as wild and untouched has actually been tottaly created by men. England was almost tottaly deforested by Celtic(?) People for farming. But obviously we do have a big negative impact.
Ayden Richardson
You still assume a tremendous amount. You're basing any possibility on current models, which all far exceed what I interpret the stone to be saying. You're still thinking about a world government, not a forum to settle international disputes.
Besides, why can't it be better than it currently is? The devil you know isn't always better than the one you haven't met yet.
Ethan Walker
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Only problem is you can't keep population under control without resorting to evil things. So, it's not morally righteous but it would probably work.
Xavier Miller
Haha. Well, good luck to ya. I'll keep my eyes peeled when 2060 comes by if I'm still alive. I'll be geriatric by then; I'll probably welcome an early expiration by then.
By the way, >you NPCs kek I'll bet your life is pretty sweet. kek kek
Camden Carter
It has some nice aspects to it, specifically regarding nature, but most of it is some New World Order shit.
>5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. >6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Michael Morgan
>People have been around for quiet awhile Not arguing anything else really, but people haven't been around long at all. We're only the very tip of the needle in the history of life on Earth, and the time we've existed with the technology to affect the planet is the last cluster of atoms at the tip of the needle. We leap into unknown territory every single day. This planet has never seen a species that lives less harmoniously with the natural balance that allowed us to evolve. Plants would probably be the last life form that affected the planet so dramatically, and it took them hundreds of millions of years.
David Wood
>Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. that's some gurren laggan shit, if it were just whites, it would be fine to have more.
>Unite humanity with a living new language. so english?
>Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. that's some hippy tier shit right there, truth is the only reason able part
>Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature. i.e. eliminate none white countries
Jackson Barnes
500 million is probably lower than necessary. Who's guiding reproduction? The government micromanages it now? That guarantees abuse. For example, nowadays diversity means eliminate whites. "Living new" leads to changes in language, which defeat the purpose of that guideline in the long run. "Unite" could mean forcing a language on people against their will instead of just having a standardized international language. "Tempered reason" sounds an awful lot like autism and edgelordery. The nature and powers of a world court aren't defined, so 6 could mean many different things, especially when it comes to enforcement. Likewise, in 7 and 8, petty, useless, and balance could mean anything. "The infinite" is completely meaningless.
These stones don't really do much guiding and could easily be interpreted as supporting a totalitarian empire. If this were 1940, the Nazis, Soviets, and Allies would all claim the stones support themselves.
War allows for fighting back. No war means one side has all the power. It's not war when the government has you executed because they feel like it, but that's not an improvement over war.
Carter Parker
It is of no consequence
266BBGB17GGF.NBHN:0093
Jacob Williams
>that's not an improvement over war War is devastating. If one dictator wants something and the whole rest of the world thinks it's unreasonable and executes that dictator, I'd say that's an enormous improvement over war.
Kevin Young
Is that the VIN on your Chevrolet Cavalier?
Brody Mitchell
Got a sauce for that stuff? I've seen the hole, but not the rest. Interested.
Henry Reed
>1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
500,000,000?
The limit on the number of people is the ability to radiate heat into space.
The rest of the world getting together and executing the dictator is war. You're describing what happened in Syria except you want Obama unleashing missiles and bombs without restraint until Assad gets killed by one.
Juan Reyes
spbp
Brayden Lee
That's the exact opposite of what I want. How would you ever get that from what I said? To be sure, a dictator assassination wouldn't be the goal, anyway. The insinuation is that nation-to-nation disputes would be solved peacefully before arriving at war as an option.
Bentley Perry
There's no other possible interpretation when dealing with dictators like Assad or Saddam. If the assassination fails, the dictator is expected to retaliate. If it succeeds and his government survives, his successor is likely to retaliate. If the government falls, then rival factions, rebels, gangs, and groups like ISIS can fight a civil war. The only way to do it peacefully would be a coup by a cooperative new leader who has enough support within the old government and from the people, but it's rare for such a person to be available, especially in places like the Middle East.
The insinuation of peaceful resolution is irrelevant without an enforcement mechanism since anyone who doesn't like the peaceful resolution can simply violate it. If you want to avoid going to war to replace dictators, you have to avoid having dictators in the first place. However, if local leaders are too weak to dictate, somebody has to be able to put down armed rebel groups. That requires some sort of world police that uses force to make rebels follow global resolutions.