Sizing Up the Georgia Guidestones

More Proof Government’s Alleged Duty To Protect Is Arbitrary At Best

The Georgia Guidestones are a modern-day megalith erected in 1980 in Elbert County, Georgia, by a mysterious benefactor whose identity to this day has never been revealed.  The giant stone tablets contain a series of commandments that, among other things, call for maintaining a global population under 500,000,000.

It doesn’t take a Doctorate in Mathematics to conclude that this number represents a more than 90% reduction in the world’s current population.

Given the US Government’s war on terror and purported stance against weapons of mass destruction, one would think this ought to warrant looking into. It is therefore curious that they have never issued a public statement or news of an official investigation into who is behind this veiled global death threat.

Leaving aside talk of the New World Order and of conspiracy theory for the moment, let’s explore instead the notion that the Guidestone’s very existence represents something of an obvious double standard. [This article originally appeared on Steemit.com. Continue reading here …]

The Reece Committee and Debunking Debunked

In 1954 the U.S. House of Representatives formed a committee under Rep. B. Carroll Reece and tasked it with investigating the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations such as the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation, for subversive purposes.

What were the Reece Committee’s findings?  Judge for yourself based on the written summary of lead researcher to the Committee, Norman Dodd in his own words.

In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly efficient, functioning whole.  Its product is apparently an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education.  It contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social structure.  For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will – presumably in the interest of all.  (p. 11)

Continue reading