Mister_Winston beat me to it with an excellent post, but I’ll put my two cents in anyway.
The hatred patriots had for that monument seems to puzzle liberal-minded people. They don't seem to understand our objection, so I thought it might help them to see an examination the text. (Long shot––I don't really believe someone with a myopic world view can really understand this, and liberals who aren't trying to cause trouble don't frequent this site.)
Let’s look at those tenets one by one.
How would that number be achieved without mass murder? How would it be enforced once it was achieved? Who would be deciding who is worthy to live? What does “in balance with nature” mean? Is there to be an enforced standard of living? Who will make the decision what that standard of living should be? Hint: It will not be you, that is if you are one of the lucky ones who were allowed to live.
It sounds to me like there would be no more, “my body, my choice.” Sorry, feminist ladies. Your reproductive freedom would be at the mercy of the government, and the choice of a partner would not be yours to make. They would “guide” you by choosing a mate according to how robust the genetic combination will be, and if he’s ugly or stinky, too bad. Your state-approved family will not be negotiable, and people you don’t know will decide which of your babies gets to be born. This is eugenics, plain and simple, enforced by the government.
Read: Force people to abandon the languages they speak, then force them to adopt a language created by bureaucrats in a committee, which they will call “living” to make it seem better than it is. This is actually a mechanism for the elimination of different cultures in favor of a single state-approved culture everyone will share in the name of unity. How nice.
The key word here is “rule,” and do not imagine it is referring to individual discipline or choice. Things like faith and tradition would be subject to invasive meddling with the goal of eventual elimination, and “tempered reason” would be thoughts and attitudes that are approved by the state. No unregulated thinking outside that box will be allowed. (Does that sound familiar?)
Sounds reasonable. But who would be doing all the protecting? Will it be a global police force? Who would be choosing the judges? Who would be making the laws? Who would be the arbiter of what is fair? You can bet it won’t be the people being forced to obey laws that were made for them without their consent. In typical socialist fashion, this is top-down organization by decree. The people are not mentioned in the process of providing justice on any level, which means that in the end it will be the system that is protected above all else.
This sounds reasonable, too. No more war. We can all govern our own nations, and disputes with our neighbors can be resolved by a higher court. The only problem is that according to the previous tenets, nations would not be free to govern themselves as they wish. They would be forced to govern according to the dictates of the world government. Also, who will be making the rules governing international disputes, and who will be choosing the judges? Can impartiality be guaranteed? No, it cannot. The history of socialist systems tells us so.
This sounds more than reasonable, bordering on joyous. But again, who would be deciding what law is petty or which official is useless? It will not be you. This item is more of an ideal that has little hope of being achieved in a top-down one-size-fits-all socialist political system.
This is a big one. This is where the socialistic character of these tenets is plain to see. Once again I must ask, who gets to decide which rights the people should have? Who gets to decide what social duties are? Who will decide which social duties supersede personal rights? Would those things be decided by a bureaucrat you don’t even know? Probably. Remember, this isn’t a call for individual responsibility. This is a directive for a future world government.
Sounds wonderful, not at all like a directive for government at all, but being included as a tenet, it is something that would also be “guided” by the state. The government will tell you what the truth is. It will define beauty for you. It will tell you whom you should love and what you should prize. It will even tell you when you are in harmony with the universe, which will, as in all socialist systems, be interpreted as being in harmony with government directives (harmony = obedience).
This last poetic line is more of a suggestion about how to think, and it is foundational. The idea that humans are a cancer or virus on the earth has been continually reinforced by popular culture since those Guidestones were erected. You are encouraged not to be a cancer, but a cancer you are, so you must work against your cancerous inclinations. They are saying you are a cosmic mistake that makes everything worse, and it is required that you feel guilty just for existing. When you agree to think like this, it makes you easy to “guide” into anything the government says will redeem you. As far as leaving room for nature, it sounds like it won’t be an issue after they achieve their goal for a reduced population.
Now, it might seem that I’m being overly dramatic––reductio ad absurdum and all––but the things I described are being done right now by western politicians who think it’s their job to advance a socialist world government, and they use just the same kind of benign hopeful-sounding language to speak about it. In socialist and communist countries, these kinds of things have long been implemented to an even greater extent because they are places where government control is complete, and no one there has the power stop them. People who think it would be different on a bigger scale or with smarter people in charge are beyond stupid.
There is a silent assumption in these tenets that there will be no interfering corruption, and that everything will work perfectly. That has never happened before in the history of humanity. The most we can hope for is a system of justice that can address corruption when it appears, but there is no hope for justice at all when all the choices are being made by the government.
Evil never shows its true face when it is trying to get you to embrace something that will kill you, and it speaks softly, with words that are appealing. Such were the words on the granite faces of that fallen monument. They were not some beautiful vision of world peace and harmony. They were the blueprint for a totalitarian world government. That is why patriots hated those stones.
It is the primary reason of our existence. Well, it is up there near the top.