I want to be buried beneath an oak sapling. After I'm dead, of course. I have one already pre-prepared by my brother. He's a professional astrologer...I have always said that I would rather be tossed in a dead furrow and just plowed over.But I'll be happy to be cremated at the Wat (Thai Buddhist temple) and have my ashes spread out in my rice fields. Never did understand the cemetery, embalming thing...
You must have made them nervous.
"Modern Man" denies the Earth, even in death. Pathetic. He dies in denial.Pete Tar said:
A burial liner is similar to a burial vault. The main difference between a burial vault and liner is that the liner only covers the top and sides of a casket, whereas a burial vault completely encloses a casket. In a burial liner, the bottom of the casket in this case is in direct contact with the ground. A burial liner serves to protect a casket during burial from being crushed and keeps the casket from being crushed when the heavy equipment that many modern cemeteries use pass over the grave. A liner helps keep the ground over the grave from sinking in, and helps keeps the ground even. To prevent sunken graves, many modern cemeteries require that either a burial liner or vault be used in burials.
Well Pete, what purpose do nuclear weapons serve? In the event that the nukes are launched, there would be no winners but yet they are still loaded and ready to go. They are there as a demonstration of power and control. That's what it all boils down to isn't it? Power and control. Yes the people are the government's tax base true enough but that's assuming that all people are actively contributing tax paying citizens. Unfortunately that isn't the case. You have the very young, the very old and all those in between that sit on their butts doing nothing collecting welfare. It is only a matter of time before the decision is made to thin the herd. If you think the government wouldn't try to eradicate these "drags on the economy", think again. What use are people that take more than they give? As to the type of attack, I think it will begin at the biological level. Then I think troops and guns will be involved. All the government needs is a pandemic to initiate martial law. What would be an easier way to start a pandemic than through the use of vaccines and who are the main target groups of these vaccines? The very old and the very young. Now I'm sure you are saying to yourself that this would affect everyone that gets the vaccine, not just the young and the old and you would be right. There will be those that don't fall into the "drag" category that will die as a result. These people will be considered "acceptable losses". You can bet that those who are considered useful won't be included in this. Now to address your question as to what has led me to believe this. Anyone with a mind to think and open eyes can see the gross misuse of power that occurs on a daily basis. Slowly but surely our rights are being taken away until one day we will be totally defenseless. It all comes back to power and control. To take a few lines from the Megadeth song Symphony of Destruction..."You take a mortal man and put him in control. Watch him become a god, watch people's heads roll. Just like the Pied Piper led rats through the streets. We dance like marionettes, swaying to the Symphony Of Destruction".
I don't quite see how misuse of power logically leads you to the conclusion they are planning to exterminate a large portion of the citizens.
"What it does make me think is that is what you would want do if you were in power, and that's why it seems a logical conclusion to you."
"There are none so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfThe proliferation of ballistic
and cruise missiles and long-range
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make
it much easier to project military power
around the globe. Munitions themselves
will become increasingly accurate, while
new methods of attack – electronic, “non-
lethal,” biological – will be more widely
available. ...
Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. ...
Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool. ...
This is merely a glimpse of the possi-
bilities inherent in the process of transfor-
mation, not a precise prediction. Whatever
the shape and direction of this revolution in
military affairs, the implications for con-
tinued American military preeminence will
be profound.
"This present window of opportunity which during a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built will not be open for too long.Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts "
The Kissenger quote is derived from a book written in 1976 entitled "The End of Days" by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Unfortunately, I was unable to pull up the full version of this book without paying for it so the complete context of the quote is unknown but I can't really see where saying "The elderly are useless eaters" would be acceptable in any context. Also, judging from other comments he has made such as “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns" and “World population needs to be reduced by 50%”, it's clear that he is a real humanitarian. In regard to the Bill Gates quote, I suppose there is nothing wrong with what he said if you don't care about your family. It's good to know that there are people out there such as yourself that would be willing to sacrifice their loved ones and friends because it is "better for the world." The link that you provided, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...risis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.174, claiming to have debunked the Rockefeller quote does nothing of the sort. That thread is about debunking gurus.
How many children qualify one to be over breeding and who determines this number? What number of children exactly should we be allowed to have?
There is a direct relationship between number of children and health and life-expectancy and poverty. Change the health of the environment (vaccines, poverty reduction) and people don't breed to excess out of desperation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12262264http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past
In the United States, the move to two-children families took place only after a society-wide transition that lowered infant death rates, opened opportunities to women outside the home, and transformed ours into an industrial rather than agrarian economy, so that families no longer relied on their children's labor. If we contrast Lappé's grandmother's story to a latter-day urban middle-class family, we can see that children who were once a source of needed labor are now a source of major costs, including tuition, an extra room in the house, the latest model basketball shoes, and forgone earnings for every year that a professional mom stays home with the kids.
The United States advanced through the falling-birth-rate phase of the demographic transition in response to these societal changes, well before the advent of sophisticated contraceptive technologies, even while the government remained actively hostile to birth control. (As late as 1965, selling contraceptives was still illegal in some states.)22
http://www.unep.org/training/progra...upplemental/Poverty_and_Population_Growth.pdf
http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/population/population-and-poverty/
Rapid population growth aggravates poverty in developing countries by producing a high ratio of dependent children for each working adult. This leads to a relatively high percentage of income being spent on immediate survival needs of food, housing, and clothing, leaving little money for purchase of elective goods or for investment in the economy, education, government services, or infrastructure. Lack of available capital continues to frustrate the attempts of many developing countries to expand their economies and reduce poverty.
Only about 20% of the current world’s population has a generally adequate standard of living. The other 80% live in conditions ranging from mild deprivation to severe deficiency. This imbalance is likely to get worse, as more than 90% of future population growth is projected to occur in the least developed countries.
Conversely, high population growth contrib
-
utes to poverty. High fertility rates affect the
health of mothers and families, increasing
the risk of maternal, infant and child mortal
-
ity, all of which combine to entrench poverty.
At a societal level, rapid population growth
increases the number of people in need of
health care, education and livelihoods. This
in turn requires more financial, material and
natural resources. With the exception of a
few oil-rich states, no country has risen from
poverty in recent times whilst still maintaining
high levels of fertility.
http://www.populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/D15Poverty.pdf
According to data from Demographic and Health Surveys for nine Latin American countries, women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world.
Women's access to education, health care, family planning, and employment all affect family size. Studies show that women who have completed primary school have fewer children than those with no education. Education is key because educated women are more likely to know what social, community, and health services, including family planning, are available and to have the confidence to use them. In addition, women with more education have more opportunities outside the home and can see the benefits of education for their children. Women who achieve a relatively high level of education are also more likely to enter the labor force before they marry or begin childbearing, and ultimately to have smaller families than women who marry in their teens. This trend is evident in almost every country where data are available. As the figure "Women's Education and Family Size" shows, women with a secondary school education have substantially smaller families than women with less education.
A women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment.
A recent article says that the quality of their higher education is to blame.
Historically low birth rates in South Korea
There was an interesting story in the Financial Times last week (2nd January 2013), “Low South Korean birth rate raises fears“, concerning low fertility rates in South Korea and the link to education. In 2010, the birth rate sank to an all-time low of 1.2 children per women. This figure is even more stunning when you consider that China has a rate of 1.6 children per woman despite its one child policy.
In both Lebanon and Jordan, women's increasing educational attainment and literacy rates have seemed to have the effect of lowering fertility, and the "average number of births for a non-educated Jordanian mother is much higher than that of a mother who attended high school or received an education beyond high school."
Apparently in many states it is a legal requirement for some burial plots ( or at least a contractual requirement by the cemetary). I would think stockpiling makes good fiscal sense. A massive production run will make more money over time once you account for inflation.
I can see both those arguments, but i am still skeptical. Seems excessive as a business model. The fact that they can be used in pandemic situations, but as an unstated usage, is also disturbing to me.Apparently in many states it is a legal requirement for some burial plots ( or at least a contractual requirement by the cemetary). I would think stockpiling makes good fiscal sense. A massive production run will make more money over time once you account for inflation.
I am certain also that the government has had contingency plans for massed casualties since the Influenza epidemic 1918 but it makes one wonder why move from mass graves to individual burials. Guess they must be more caring now
900,000, by your research. Im sensing a pattern in debunking methods here, focusing on a single aspect of a single aspect, and by comparison implying debunk of the entire concept. This is not a complete strategy, though an important component of one. a grouping of ideas possibly could be addressed, in order to add validty and credibtlity to some aspects of investigation, while eliminating others. Both are very important however, in a broader sense.
