Monday, November 16, 2009

The American Stonehenge


Nobody seems quite sure who built the monument or why. But the Georgia Guidestones, in the northwest Georgia sticks, have aroused both admiration and suspicion.

Yoko Ono is quoted as saying, "I want people to know about the stones ... We're headed toward a world where we might blow ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist ... it's a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Stones symbolize that." We come from a planet far, far away to help you, knowing you Earthlings are in danger of destroying yourselves …

Then again, many see it as threatening, if not outright satanic. A site called Radio Liberty counsels:

Certainly the group that commissioned the Georgia Guidestones is one of many similar groups working together toward a New World Order, a new world economic system, and a new world spirituality. Behind those groups, however, are dark spiritual forces. Without understanding the nature of those dark forces it is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events.

The fact that most Americans have never heard of the Georgia Guidestones or their message to humanity reflects the degree of control that exists today over what the American people think. We ignore that message at our peril.

Dark forces. Wow. No wonder I sometimes have trouble finding my car keys.

So, what is the inspirational/wicked message from the "covert group" (per Radio Liberty) responsible for the Guidestones? It promotes 10 principles, about equally divided between good sense and foolish or fuzzy thoughts.

"1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." This is an excellent idea. Overpopulation has done more to degrade the quality of life — that's quality, not quantity of material goods — than any other single factor other than war. How you reduce the population to 500 million without dispatching the rest to early graves is a dilemma, but the principle is a good one.

"2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity." Too vague to mean much. Even assuming it was a good idea, how would you guide reproduction toward diversity?

"3. Unite humanity with a living new language." What, is every tongue spoken on earth a dead language? Presumably this means a new common language to be spoken by everyone, like Esperanto, which hasn't had such a good run. But even if there were a single worldwide language, it would take politicians and salespeople about a week to learn how to use it to mislead.

"4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason." Right. That's what this blog is an example of, tempered reason. Sometimes, admittedly, bad tempered.

"5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts." Check.

"6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court." Fine. Just explain to me how you make a world court non-political.

"7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials." This conflicts with the commandment for a world court.

"8. Balance personal rights with social duties." We're working on that one. It's not going well.

"9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite." That's my goal, as soon as I find my car keys.

"10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature." We have it on the authority of Susan Sontag that the white race is the cancer of human history, and my sun sign is Cancer, so I suppose it's too late for me. Did I mention that you should leave room for nature?



IlĂ­on said...

Foolishness *is* wickedness.

And maintaining human global numbers under .5 billion is *not* a good idea. But, even if it were a good idea, it can be achieved only via tyranny and injustice ... and thus, it is a very wicked idea.

Rick Darby said...


Why would keeping the human population under half a billion be a bad idea? I can see nothing but good in it for — as I made clear — quality of life.

On a finite globe, the population will have to stop expanding at some point. Do you want to wait till the entire earth is wall-to-wall people? Shall we just keep adding another billion every few years till we get there? Or can we start thinking about quality of life in preference to quantity?

Anonymous said...

This optimum population question would require that a lot of decisions be made. The rub is in who gets to decide.


Rick Darby said...


Yes, but the question of who decides is the same as with any other issue.

Jaz said...

The problem is the wrong people are deciding everything now.