Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 52. (Read 345758 times)

It is quite obvious to me, as I explained above.


Maybe because I'm not that interested? As I said, my comments are based on the language of the inscriptions themselves, and the historical context of the time they were written.


Which certainly suggests he was quite concerned that it might happen!

I agree I haven't read his book so I have no idea what else he might have said. Based on what I've seen the stones look like advice to post-catastrophe people.

I respect evidence and sound logic. You're a false prophet. 

See what happened to smooth in the prior post. Same will happen to you if I had the time to deal with you. I don't. Sorry you aren't worth it (smooth is). I have other serious things to do other than digging up the research for you that you are too arrogant+lazy to do for yourself.

You give no respect to my 7+ years of intense research and the powers of discernment that have resulted from it.

You disrespect expertise at your own peril. If you want to delude yourself on the value of the effort I have applied to research, that is your prerogative.

You still haven't explained how inscription #2 can be congruent with this interpretation.

The creator of the Georgia Guidestones wrote a book. Why didn't you bother to check it?

http://govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Common-Sense-Renewed.pdf#page=10


In Chapter 1 on the same page he mentions the threat nuclear war but in the context of Thomas Paine's call for reason unfortunately resulting in war because humans would not resort to reason. And his plea is to form a world government to prevent nuclear war.

So again as I wrote up thread, even if the nuclear war threat was involved, it would only make sense in the context of a world government to prevent it from occurring. Again globalist control.

So that shows who here has better powers of discernment. Because I didn't read this book until just now upon your challenge.

P.S. you all might want to save a copy of that PDF book, as only 100 copies were produced and the only copy I found for sale was $2200.

Give me some evidence and i'm sure they'll open right up. 


The relevant point is you can't prove your statement. It's a guess with a lot of circumstantial bells and whistles.

I can only go where the evidence leads, and i find the artist (who you conveniently pointed out had worked so long on the project) more convincing than your explanation. But go spend a few hundred hours with the work and tell me if you still feel the same. I guess you can keep centering it around your world conception that long, but i doubt it.

Yes I do. Furthermore in reading the inscriptions on their own and doing my best to ignore/disregard any commentary, they clearly appear to me to be more likely (though still not certain) to be advice on how to build/rebuild a society than advice on how to change the society we already have, or how to behave within the context of that society. Of course we each bring our prior beliefs and assumptions to any observation of new things.

You got that part right.

Your eyes are closed. And you don't address any of the relevant points.

I find that response to be so weak as to be unworthy of further repeat of what I already wrote. You didn't even address my logic.

Do you really believe your interpretation makes much sense as compared to the one I presented?

If yes, I can only sigh.

I don't care how much circumstantial evidence you throw around this theory. It doesn't excuse you from needing a direct correlation from the artist to the global cabal to prove your quoted statement. Just because The Cure wrote a bunch of depressing songs doesn't mean that Friday I'm in love is about suicide. But good luck with selling your mural theory to the masses. I find it irrational, unprovable, and a waste of time. Drugs would be a better theory in my estimate (at least a more entertaining one). Not sure why you haven't grasped my need for evidence to prove your theory is more than a guess based on grouping the murals into your larger view of the world. Maybe someday you'll see the forest from the trees, or should I say the mural from the conspiracy  

generalizethis, if we both agree as you first stated that art is a message.

Why is it that you pigeon-hole it to be only a message driven by the artist and not also a message driven by the commissioner of the art and the audience for the art?

So simple minded.

May I ask born and childhood where? I will reciprocate. I was born and raised up to age 15 in New Orleans (and vicinity as far as Baton Rouge).


I have already addressed this and apparently you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. I have written the explanation several times, so how could it help if I write the explanation again. I entirely disagree with your slanderous (erroneous) summary.

Again you don't seem to understand science. For example, if I want to detect a bacteria in my body do I always have to show you a copy of the bacteria, or can I look for an immunoglobulin marker that indicates I have developed antibodies to that bacteria.

You are so simple minded.


Why are you so incapable of measuring scale? Do 110 million passengers per year pass through any one of those locales. Duh. I already wrote to you:

---

And don't you think you would grasp the significance by now? Yet still you don't. It is extremely frustrating how slow you are to grasp my points. It is as if you have a built in defense mechanism which prevents your mind from opening wide enough to grasp a point-of-view which is different than your own.


And how many times have I told you that his meaning was never important. The only meaning that is important is the impact on the 110 million people a year who see it and the way it causes discord and discomfort to so many Americans, and that so many people can see globalist multiculturalism bullshit being rammed down our throat yet again.

I have no problem with this artist making these murals for a small town museum or art gallery. Can you read? $5.2 billion dollars. This was a huge public works project. Nothing like that happens without the political wheels being greased and this of course means the elite are involved. Are you just oblivious to reality?


I don't agree with your assessment. I am much more careful and logical than these bozos who throw around crazy theories with no rational support.


I don't give a fuck what some artist paints for himself. He is not painting for himself. He is painting socially and politically to seen by up to (future capacity of) 110 million passengers per year. I don't blame him. I blame those in charge.


You seem to have a problem with distinguishing art and political-economics. Check back with me after you've learned the difference.

Edit: I see clearly in the image a united nations forging a peace. That is multiculturalism and globalism. If the artist had some other intention and he knows that people are walking past very quickly, then he is not doing a good job of conveying his intended message. Again you have a problem with distinguishing between the responsibility and the art. You are protecting art for art's sake, but that was never my problem with this incident. There is lots of art going on outside the fewer number of significant structures that put up for the public en masse. You think the art for a $5.2 billion project is done benignly as if the people in charge do not even care about the content and let the artists portray what ever the artist wants to. Hell no. You are delusional if you think that. Just go try sometime to actually produce art for a major institution and learn something about reality. Have you stayed on your sofa your entire life? Hmmm, let me see if I start painting murals of the overthrow of the USA government at the Denver airport will they let me continue for 3 years 

It is directed at what a small number of survivors should do long term to create a healthy (and better) society than the one that had failed. i.e. trying to instill cultural values. Whoever was behind it probably thought of it as a sort of ten commandments. That's pretty obviously true, the only question is who is expected to pay any attention to these commandments. I don't really see people pre-catatastrophe ever paying much heed to some anonymous guy's writings on a monolith, but post-catatstrophe, people might.


I never said that he was senile. I said that even if well intentioned (and I don't know), his advice to future people may still be ill-advised. We have no idea of his level of expertise in developing a set of foundational values for a healthy society, if such expertise is even possible.

EDIT: BTW it is also possible that the feared catastrophe that would lead to a failure of society and a need to rebuild with advice from monoliths was not nuclear war at all, but simply overpopulation and resource depletion leading to a rapid mass die-off (as some forecast at time time, Paul Ehrlich notably). Maybe the white haired guy was a fan.

You moved the goal posts as I stated you would.

First you tried to argue that the "2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity." was directed at a small number of survivors that needs to improve their fitness and diversity. And now you move the goal posts and argue that the statue is directed to the long-term. But by then, there won't be any need to "improving fitness and diversity" and in fact the only way to limit population is to destroy fitness and diversity.

There is no way to make all the inscriptions congruent with either of your two interpretations (and you need to choose one). If you argue that inscription #2 is for the short-term and the rest are for the long-term, my prior post pointed out that such information would be useless (of no added value). There is no way to make your interpretation fit.

After your logic has blown up, you resort to the senile old man defense rather than just admitting your interpretation fails to be congruent.

Reading the account of the meetings with "Robert C. Christian" he was not at all senile.

You are conflating any pockets of developing Malthusianism in the 1970s with an orthogonal nuclear holocaust issue. I don't remember any prominent TV programs, interviews, documentaries, and even magazine articles that were relating the two. The globalists no doubt would want to conflate the two and use it as another excuse for world government. And it always comes back to my interpretation which is who ever created these statues was expressing globalist aims. This wasn't some non-evil plea to guide humanity with realistic advice. It is insane advice. Can you disagree?

I think the fears here are overblown.  
  
There was a peak moment of when nations had maximum sovereignty before the rise of global connectivity.  That was from the 1940's to the 1960's.   That was a major needlehole that we escaped through.  
  
After that moment (along with the rise of the Internet) we began growing into a global society with more commonalities than differences.  (if you want to go full tinfoil, this is also when reports of aliens became widespread, so the most fringe supernatural speculators might theorize that humanity was meant to annihilate itself in nuclear war in the middle of the 20th century and only the intervening hand of some ET/future-society stopped us)  
  
But all that wild conspiracy aside, the fact remains that we are now a global brain and society.  The idea of China, Russia, Europe, or the United States declaring true war on each other is as unlikely as one of the organs of our body declaring war on another.  It's possible, but highly unlikely.  We now realize all of our fates are intertwined, and the prosperity of the human race is now the most important factor - not patriotism.  In some ways, we can think the rise of the "evil" global corporation for this, as it distingrated borders in favor of a higher form of organization.  
  
So despite any other truth of the matter with regards to high level conspiracies, I think it's extraordinarily unlikely we will ever face a true self-inflicted Apocalypse.  It is certainly possible a cosmic disaster levels our civilization, but I hope that the exponential pace of technology will either allow us to harden our existence through stellar conquest or bring us into contact with 'the rest' via some undiscovered technology like FTL information transfer or learning to perceive the other 80% of matter in the universe (my favorite solution to the Fermi paradox: there already is a robust trans-galactic civilization.  We can see the effects of their celestial terraforming via the great hole where no matter exists and we can ascertain their existence via the 80% of "missing" matter in the universe...  But we just haven't discovered the technology yet that lets us exist/perceive/build on that playing field yet).  

I am American.

Also, attempting to link all your NWO theories to this mural, proves my point: the murals are a honeypot for the paranoid, the  delusional, those who easily accept conspiracy theories without evidence.

Can you put forth one piece of evidence linking the bankers directly to the artists? No.

You keep pointing out the capstone. If this is evidence of a global conspiracy, then every small town in America has a link in this mesh of an Illuminatiesque control system. My point being that this makes the Denver Airport no more special than thousands of other buildings with similar capstones--you need to do more work here to convince me. Starting with some actual evidence would be a start.

You also keep pointing to artist getting a 3 year extension. This backs my earlier point that the artist knows his work better than those trying to expose a conspiracy. Staring at a work for years, most likely hundreds of hours, analyzing it, planning it, makes the artist in this case the best expert. The more time an artist (or any craftsman or developer) spends with a work the more they know its details, its story, and its vision. How long did you stare at it? One hour? Two? Ten? This doesn't disprove your theory that he somehow was influenced, but how can you disprove an infinite maybe? I imagine someone could say maybe "mind control or aliens," but that doesn't mean I can't point out that one possability is more plausible than another and that an untestable theory is lazy, unscientific, and grand waste of everyone's time.

There are numerous conspiracy theories about the Denver International Airport www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/the_denver_international_airport_conspiracy/. Yours isn't the most convincing nor the most interesting nor even the most weird. And piling onto it with all the minutia of your world view without directing anyone to evidence of a sinister link between the actual execution of the art and those planning a NWO hardly gives any credence to the direct statement you asserted:

"the murals depict the plans of the global elite for a period of global war, death, and destruction starting roughly 2018."

Does it? Or does it show an artist's conception of a world that has thrown off the shackles of war and each country given equal footing in a globe that respects nature and human rights? I respect artists enough to believe them. His view may be a bit chimerical in my estimation, but more influenced by John Lennon's Imagine than bankers looking to rule over humanity.

Please refrain from throwing a kitchen sink argument in your response. I am not interested in your general theory as it does not prove or disprove any banker (or other global cabal) involvement with the art-- I find the tactic a bore and feel that it lacks the efficiency I've been generous enough to show you.

Well, I'd have to disagree having spent a lot of time in the ME over the last 7 years. Sure, the numbers of people fleeing are astronomical, that's not up for debate. I have no problem agreeing that economically this looks like being a major problem for the indebted countries of Europe. And the nationalities and cultures are different & varied: Allawite, Kurds, Christians, Yatzidis, Sunni, Shia, even Druids etc. That's just in Syria. Does this pose a problem with integrating into Western society - absolutely, even if Assad were to fall (for he is a tyrant) we would likely have a similar situation to Iraq where old tribal feuds reignite in a power vacuum.

The thing is, language is a great indicator. For example how you are framing the actions of refugees "anyone bright enough to throw away their passport and brave enough to make the journey and call themselves a refugee". This casts them in a light where the reader assumes suspicions of their motives. Or I only have vitriol for those that threaten the liberty of others. You're referring to terrorism, but only the kind perpetrated in the West, not by the West. Notice how when the US is killing civilians it is collateral damage but when Russia is, they are creating terrorists?


TPTB_needs_war

Well put. Sometimes it's possible to be Orwellian and believe two opposing positions to be true at the same time; I don't disagree that it could potentially be catastrophic due to the current economic conditions or troubles with integration of cultures and that the future is challenging. Would it be different if Euro economies were booming? The reason Euro economies are f*cked isn't because of migrants. We've discussed the actions of governments, bankers etc at length, the refugee crisis may just prove to be the catalyst.

And TPTB_needs you hit on the crux of my position: fairness. it is easy to direct blame on particular groups. I think we should accept that it is the actions of Empire Building & misguided geo-politics and the finger should be pointed at the source not the result. If we're going to discuss it, let's be fair about it and consider all aspects.

And above all, nothing personal BTS.

You're assuming the advice is directed at immediate survival, but it is more obviously directed at long term rebuilding of a better society than the one that blew itself up (if that is the intent at all, which I don't know, but as I have said repeatedly I find it more plausible than directives such as promoting diversity and fitness, for example, being directed at a non-obliterated population).

It all may well be bad advice too. Who can say that some older guy with some money and white hair actually has any fucking idea how to properly rebuild humanity. My take on it is to interpret what intended audience is most logical given the language of the directives. I find the theory of a post-nuclear war audience quite plausible. I can't prove that was the actual intent though.

BTW, I already explained the 500M number. In the 70s it was widely believed (in some circles at least) that humanity had overstepped the carrying capacity of the earth and this would or at least could lead to (if it hadn't already) global resource competition and potentially catastrophic wars or other societal collapse (see Limits to Growth). To avoid a repeat you would need to keep the population smaller.

Yeah I see that clever twist linguistically, but...

We are telling people who are trying to survive to think about finding each other over a scorched earth planet and focus on diversity of their reproduction and to form a world court, when in fact these people are going to be most concerned about finding food and water that is safe to consume.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

You are very linguistically clever (which coincides with your multi-lingual programming language skills), but context is where this falls apart.


What does that have to do with people struggling to not perish after a nuclear holocaust.

Okay let's say you move the goal posts and argue that this monument is directed towards later after humanity has sufficiently recovered, but then your fitness and diversity interpretation no longer applies.

Also it doesn't make sense to me from another angle, which is people are naturally driven to reproduce with fitness and diversity. Women are into hypergamy and they love to fornicate with outsiders (the bad boy look). Men will travel far for new vaginas. No statue will ever guide human's natural motives in reproduction.

The only possible point of a statue in this case is to foist some top-down dogma and control on nature, which thus only makes sense in limiting what is natural.

Also the following does not fit your interpretation in any way.


That specific number has nothing to do with a nuclear threat nor recovery, unless one takes that as the number of likely survivors, but then the other inscriptions conflict.

And this is another reason why the Great Pyramids are tied into configuration with the Georgia Guidestones and the Denver airport to form a pentagram star. The Great Pyramids have features that deal with the alignment of stars. If I remember correctly on the pyramids has a feature where a certain star shines right on the casket at some key interval. The Georgia Guidestones also have feature where a certain star can be viewed from a portal at intervals (but wasn't implemented well) and were the light that shines on the base through an aperature can supposedly be used as a calendar.

Again this is all circumstantial, but in life everything is relative. We look for a preponderance of evidence as support.