Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an Internet meme originating 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain. It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.

In its early form, the concept has been adopted by a decentralized on-line community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal, and primarily focused on entertainment. Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism, undertaking protests and other actions, often with the goal of promoting internet freedom and freedom of speech. Actions credited to "Anonymous" are undertaken by unidentified individuals who apply the Anonymous label to themselves as attribution.

Although not necessarily tied to a single on-line entity, many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, Futaba, their associated wikis, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and a number of forums. After a series of controversial, widely-publicized protests and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased. In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be one of the three major successors to WikiLeaks.

Source: wikipedia

The ZARDOZ server is a data clearing house for the map generator over at Transport. I have attempted several times to "save a file" called "dutch" and see if it shows up over on Zardoz.... this does NOT happen.. therefore people are mixing APPLES and ORANGES on this map generator hypothesis, some people think when you generate a map over at the transport website, you somehow can input the radiation amounts .. this is not the case ...

These ARE forecasts, so they are NOT "real" satellite shots of radiation in the air.. i must clarify this for the lay person who doesn't understand that you cannot actually "see" radiation on a map like this. 

These are forecasts that were based upon the numbers available to the NILU. NOT saved personal forecasts by joe anonymous who just happened to log in and "make their own" and input radiation numbers...

Willow Garage, the Menlo Park, California-based consortium of robotics experts, founded by Scott Hassan in 2006 to create or develop hardware and open source software for the advancement of robotics, has announced the release of TurtleBot; a small home use robot for either amusement/entertainment purposes, or for those inclined, to build open source applications to add to the functionality of the new robot.

The idea behind TurtleBot, is to give novice robotics enthusiasts a base upon which to build. Traditionally, those that like to tinker with robots have had to start from scratch every time they wanted to build something; the TurtleBot does away with that concept by supplying users with a base upon which they can build, as the TurtleBot comes fully functional. Out of the box it can map your house with its 3-D vision, bring you food, take 360 degree panorama pictures and follow you around etc. But it also comes with the Robot Operating System (ROS) and associated toolkit, so that if users wish to add or change functionality, they are free to do so, and because its open source, anything they create can be shared with friends or those involved in online robotics communities. 

Another objective of the TurtleBot team was to show that such a device could be put on the market for a reasonable price; in this case $500, for a very basic unit, and $1200 for the fully loaded version. Far below what robot enthusiasts have come to expect to pay.
The TurtleBot team was able to meet their objective by using virtually off the shelf components. It uses Microsoft’s Connect for sensing, an iRobot Create base, a 3000 mAh battery pack, an Asus 1215N laptop and a stock gyro to help the little guy keep its balance. The TurtleBot looks like a kitchen footstool on wheels but is perfectly capable of navigating around your house with relative ease.

While the team at Willow Garage would most certainly like to make some money off their new robot, they appear to be more concerned with advancing the science of robotics, exemplified by the use of open-source programming tools and low-cost existing hardware.

Source: PhysOrg

Mahjong is a game that originated in China, commonly played by four players (with some three-player variations found in Korea and Japan). The four player table version should not be confused with the popular western single player (tile matching) computer game (Mahjong solitaire) which is a recent invention and completely different from the table game. Mahjong is a game of skill, strategy and calculation and involves a certain degree of chance. In Asia, mahjong is also popularly played as a gambling game (though it may just as easily be played recreationally).

The game is played with a set of 136 tiles based on Chinese characters and symbols, although some regional variations use a different number of tiles. In most variations, each player begins by receiving thirteen tiles. In turn players draw and discard tiles until they complete a legal hand using the fourteenth drawn tile to form four groups (melds) and a pair (head). There are fairly standard rules about how a piece is drawn, stolen from another player (melded), the use of basic (numbered tiles) and honours (winds and dragons), the kinds of melds, and the order of dealing and play. However there are many regional variations in the rules; in addition, the scoring system, the minimum hand necessary to win varies significantly based on the local rules being used.

SOUND BANKING

We need to have a true banking system that is built to last. There are two separate purposes to a bank. The primary reason of a bank's existence is to safely store your money. That is why banks have vaults. You bring your money to them and they keep it safe for you. Today we also have available services such as internet banking, cashiers checks, electronic transfers, debit cards, ATM's, etc. The bank keeps your money safe, accessible and today able to be used much more conveniently. That is the sole purpose of a bank. Every last penny you put in would be held in reserve and available to you on request. Banks would not lend any of it out. Banks would make money in this model because you would pay fees to the bank for their services, and you would always know your money is safe, secure and that any "run on the bank" could be covered by the bank's reserves.

The second and separate function of a bank is lending/investing. This function should be entirely separate from the first function. This function is for those who wish to put some or all of their money at risk for a possible gain, and they also accept the losses if their investment fails. If you want to invest in such services of a bank you could buy stock, bonds, CD's or other investment opportunities at agreed upon terms between you and the bank. If we have a crash in the economy, only this "at risk" or invested money is in jeopardy. Currently both these functions are intermingled and when one goes down it takes the entire financial system with it. We must end this insanity and return to a sound banking model.

END THE FED RESERVE

We can't say it much more clearly than that. The Federal Reserve System needs to be systematically taken apart and replaced with hard money and a sound banking system. Money should be issued by the US Treasury and have some if not full hard assets backing it. We should also end legal tender laws so there can be competing currencies issued by the private market as well.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

We must re-define the scope of government. The original idea of America was to have a strong but very limited in scope Federal Government. The Constitution laid out clearly what the scope was to be and it is a small fraction of what it has evolved into today.

There is no question that as time goes on there are new issues that arise because of new problems and technologies, but the inherent and legal philosophy can and should still be used to make the determination on whether it fits into the federal government's proper role to manage these things. If it is something that falls outside of what the constitution allows, they either must not do it or we change the constitution to accommodate this new responsibility. The reason this is so important is not just because one is a stickler for the letter of the Constitution but because Governments, unless strictly held in check, only grow over time.

Most bureaucrats and elected officials want more money and control, and as this occurs they get their hands into more and more areas of life. The problem is that as the organism of central government grows it becomes unfocused and loses transparency. Waste and corruption go up and accountability goes down. Just look at recent events with the banking bailouts, the BP oil spill and other areas of corruption and incompetence such as Katrina. Another important problem is that you have a lot less individual say in your federal government as you are only 1 in 231 million eligible voters and it takes huge amounts of money and organization to make an impact on a national level. On the other hand you can have far more impact in your city or even your state. It's much easier to hold local governments accountable than it is a national government. You could reasonably have a chance of being on your city council or maybe even the state assembly. It is much more difficult to be in the House of Representatives, not to mention the Senate or President.

Less government is better, but the government we have should be as local as possible. We are often caught up with reform rather then elimination, and while we can reform the government until we are blue in the face, much of it just needs to be eliminated. To give you a feeling about how the size of the Federal Government has grown here are the percentages of the Gross Domestic Product that our Federal Government spends. This number tells us how big a piece of the entire economy the government is:

1913
Federal government 2.5% of GDP
All government (including Federal, state and local) 7% of GDP

1940
Federal government 10% of GDP
All government was 20% of GDP

1980
Federal government 20% of GDP
All government 32% of GDP

2009
Federal government 25% of GDP
All government 45% of GDP

In less than 100 years the size of the federal government has grown ten fold. We need to reign in the size of government and get it down to less than half its current size relative to GDP. The total of all government in the US should not exceed 20% and the federal government should be less than 10%. We need to cut, but what are we to cut? It's not as hard as you may think, and you will be surprised at how long we have managed to live without these programs that have now become untouchable.

Cut the following departments to either their proper role or cut them entirely and take the few responsibilities that some of them have that are needed and lawful and merge them into departments that are more justifiable. We need a department of defense we just don't need them to police the world:

Department of Defense (Created 1947)

We should bring most if not every troop home, not only from the middle east wars but also from our foreign bases. There is no increased long term safety to have troops all over the world and spend the $1trillion dollars annually to maintain this false sense of security. It's always funny how these war hawk, anti-terror, hard liners can't wait to send troops all over the world and yet our borders and ports are totally unsecured. Wait, here's an idea, bring our troops home, reunite them with their families, spend a hell of a lot less money and have them secure our borders and ports! Let these other countries figure out their own issues. Defense policy should not run on fear. That's what they constantly feed us. Do not become a victim of fear. As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Department of Energy (Created 1977)

The free market will handle energy demands. All we need is a department that manages mineral rights for mining and Oil/Gas drilling. We do not need a so called "energy policy". This department has caused far more bad than good. Do some research on ethanol and how the heavy subsidizing of corn to produce ethanol has caused massive deforestation, more pollution and higher food costs. The market will meet our energy needs not the government.

Department of Education (Created 1979)

This department hurts education, it doesn't help it. It exists because educational special interests have taken over the system in this country. Government in this country spends over $1 trillion on education annually. In 1970 we spent $56.5 billion. That is a 20 fold increase in spending and our test scores have stayed the same. How are we spending 20 times as much for the same? Some of that is inflation but most of it is not. Also remember that in 1970 people did not have computers and other high tech devices that should be accelerating learning today by leaps and bounds.

Department of Homeland Security (Created 2002)

This department does more to hurt civil liberties in this nation than anyone can imagine. We do not need this department. It opens the door to a massive loss on civil liberties.

Department of Labor (Created 1913)

Labor is a state issue. The federal government does not need to tell you how to have people do their jobs.

Department of Agriculture (Created 1862)

Farming is a state and market issue. The market place will meet the food demand and this department's rules are set up to favor a move to a mega agri-business model, where a few huge corporations make all the food. The food they make tends not to be healthy or made with care for you, the earth or the animals they sell.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (Created 1965)

Housing is a city and local issue. The federal government often creates large ghettos and is a major contributor to price inflation in real estate because of their interference.

Medicaid (Created 1965)

Providing healthcare for the poor is something that if it's going to be done should only be done at a state and local level. Really it should be done by charities and not the government. This program and the way it's designed bankrupts states, creates medical care inflation and creates a dependent class of people.

Social Security (Created 1935)

This program went from a national insurance policy for very old widows to a national retirement plan for the masses. Whether you like it or not, it will go bankrupt, and we have to, at a minimum, get this program solvent. This most fairly and easily could be done by raising the retirement age significantly. Think about this: when social security was created in the 1930's, the average life expectancy was 62, but you did not start receiving social security until the age of 65.

If you're going to do an apples to apples comparison with the current life expectancy then and now, the retirement age for social security should be 80 today. The people today who are at or near the current retirement age do need to have the promise we made them kept, but we need to begin to move this program into its intended direction. Social security should be a bottom line insurance plan for people who can no longer physically work and have outlived their savings.

Medicare (Created 1965)

This program is only about 45 years old and already threatens the entire United States as its deficits are going to be overwhelming very soon. There are two main issues. The first is that healthcare is too expensive, primarily due to the fact that we do not have a free market for healthcare. The way to create manageable healthcare costs is not difficult:

Get rid of mandates for coverage. Buy only the coverage that you desire and not what the state tells you to have.
Allow people to buy insurance across state lines so there is maximum competition.
We must have tort reform to bring down the frequency and the costs of lawsuits.
Make the tax laws the same for business and individuals so that people can purchase health insurance on their own rather than through company. This creates much more portability.
Get the government out of healthcare. They already spend 50% of every healthcare dollar and have driven costs and inefficiencies through the roof. We need individuals responsible for their own healthcare. If we knew the costs and had to pay for it, we would be much more conservative in what services we needed. Insurance is for the unforeseen. Cancer or a heart attack is unforeseen; the Flu or a broken finger is not. We must restore a marketplace to healthcare in the same way that we have a marketplace for most every other good or service.
The above ideas are just a start. Literally every level of government needs to be totally overhauled. We need to examine what we really need each level of government to be doing and what we or the market can do for ourselves. Most things fall into the latter.
We as Americans are facing a dire future and possible economic and structural collapse if we do not face the facts and take back individual responsibility. Political promises do nothing. The same speeches we hear every election cycle, but it is the power of the people given them by the law of our land that must hold our massive government accountable. Remember the government serves the people.

The warning of the upcoming cliff can be best summed up by a quote most attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Repeal the 17th Amendment

In 1913 (bad year if you like freedom!), the same year that the Federal Reserve was created, there were two constitutional amendments put into place that have radically changed America for the worst. The first was the 16th Amendment which paved the way for the IRS and the personal income tax, and the second was the 17th Amendment put into affect in April of that same year.

The 17th amendment sounds simple and not too controversial. It changes election laws for Senators by mandating that our Senators be elected by popular vote. However prior to this, the Constitution mandated that all Senators were to be chosen by their state legislature.

You may think that this change shouldn't matter much, but simply put, America always had a balance of power in its federal government. Our elected House of Representatives are localized and popularly elected officials who are there to bring a very quick response from the people to Washington, and to give smaller groups of people a say in their government. With short two year terms this part of the congress could be reshuffled quickly to advocate the will of the people.

The President was meant to represent the will of our nation as a whole and Presidential terms were set at four years, which is in between the two years for Representatives and the six year terms of our Senators. This balanced our congress with both a shorter, medium term and longer national outlook. Senators were always picked by our state legislators to represent the interests of the individual states. This Senate branch of congress was meant to move more thoughtfully and slowly, hence the 6 year terms. Senators were created to defend the power and independence of the state they were chosen to represent.

However, the 17th Amendment changed this by changing the election of Senators to popular vote. In so doing, we have destroyed this carefully crafted congressional system that was put in place by our founding fathers. In part, running for Senator is generally much more expensive than it is to run for the House of Representatives, and money pours in from large companies and special interests intended to influence Senators and elect those that will advance their special agenda. Overall, this amendment allows for centralized powerbases and radically affects state sovereignty. Because the states no longer have a seat at the national table, we have seen a huge power move from constitutionally mandated state centered government to nationally centered government.

This amendment was not an accident but a carefully planned and executed coup. Passed under the smoke screen of giving "citizens"; more control of their government it has done just the opposite by adding further corruption to the system and vastly eroding state independence.

Our Republic took a big hit in 1913. We would do this nation a great justice by repealing the 16th amendment, 17th amendment and The Federal Reserve act.

END AN ECONOMY OF DEBT

We need to end the economy of Debt. Think about it: credit cards, car loans, long mortgages, financing for school, computers, big screen tv’s. All this credit everywhere. Most of us Americans live in debt. Many of our parents and most all of our grandparents didn’t live like this. You paid cash! You bought a new car when you had the money to pay for it. Many bought homes for cash and mortgages were often 7 years with big down payments. As our film shows, our current fiat money is inherently debt. It is loaned into existence. It is worth nothing inherently. It’s just an IOU. We all need to realize that we are going to have to live within our means. Spend only what we have and save for unforeseen events and our future. Living a debt free financially rational life is liberating; your relationships, family and sense of well being are all better. The materialism behind “buy now pay later” is a garbage lie that has us all chasing a carrot we can never catch. It has made many of us slaves. I implore to you be just a bit more old fashion and think of what your grandfather would have done.

HARD MONEY

We need to begin to reinstitute "real money". Historically money was gold and silver or a piece of paper that was redeemable for an amount of gold or silver. There are potential improvements possible than strict gold and silver standard, but the core idea here is that paper money has to represent something with long term real value which is finite and can be converted into a real asset. For example, we could have multiple precious metals, oil, food and other real assets put into a "basket" to stand behind our money. Gold and silver had a few problems as a hard money standard, but worked fairly well and could work even better with a few updates. Regardless of the backing, our money should only be created if it represents something that is valuable today, was valuable yesterday and has a good chance of being valuable tomorrow. Something real! Removing legal tender laws that prohibit private currencies would open up the marketplace to other ideas so we could have the best, most stable money there can be.

FAIR TAXATION

For the first 120 years of this country we had no income tax. We didn't need an income tax then and we don't need an income tax now. Whether we can repeal the 16th amendment and get rid of the income tax may not happen in step one, but let us at least have a fair and free system where everyone must share the burden of taxation. For instance, if you can vote to get a benefit for you, but demand that I pay for it, that is not going to promote long term freedom and prosperity for either of us. The more you use or make, the more you pay, but it must be proportional and that is the fundamental key to fair taxation.

Two other core ideas to fair taxation are that it be simple and only used for revenue generation and not intimidation or returning favors. This is what the current complex code does. It's so complicated that what the IRS demands you pay becomes a matter of interpretation. Loopholes are written into the code to favor the politically connected. It's nonsense. If we have to have an income tax it should be flat with very limited if any deductions, such as the money you give to charity. Remember most of the loopholes are for the politically connected anyway not for you or me.

The other core idea to fair taxation requires that the tax rate be as low as possible. A very common falsehood about taxes is that the higher the tax rate the more money the government raises in revenue. This is not true. The higher tax rates go up the more you cut economic growth. In economics, there is a point that higher taxes and maximum revenue cross which shows the most revenue the government can raise. It is much lower than you may think, about 10-15% depending on which economist's model and deductions you include, far lower than our current system. This rate is for all taxes, including social security and medicare. This rate should be applied to all forms of personal income and to business's net income. One rate, one set of rules, everyone pays. That is fair taxation.

AMERICAN DREAM DVD
The American Dream offers a powerful and informative look at America's economic collapse and reveals the ugly truth behind the Federal Reserve... Price: $9.95

BUY NOW !!!

Source: www.theamericandreamfilm.com

Greetings.

Anonymous has a grave announcement to make to all users of the World Wide Web.

The Internet you have come to take for granted has once again come under attack.

Several interest groups have been successfully lobbying to consolidate internet censorship within the United States. They are rallying for the right to remove any websites they deem "inappropriate" and, ultimately, for the ability to remove any content that disagrees with their profit margins, personal whims, or other agendas.

This new initiative is called the PROTECT IP Act:
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-to-introduce-draconian-anti-piracy-censorship-bill-110511/

This bill would allow the US Government to force ISPs and search engines to censor websites they do not like under the guise of "copyright protection".
Instead of reducing piracy, this bill endangers the free flow of information. Through domain seizures, ISP blockades, search engine censorship, and the restriction of funding to websites accused of infringement, this bill promises to take Internet censorship to the next level. Furthermore, it violates the citizens' rights to due process, to free speech, to free expression and to legal representation at their hearing.

The Internet is a place where anyone and everyone can come together freely to share information and opinions. The freedom the Internet provides has served as a global aid for tens of millions of people in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Iran, to name a few. All of this has been accomplished largely without interference from corporations, governments, or any other global institutions until now.

We must unite and stand up to those who wish to censor the Internet. We must not allow them the freedom to moderate information and decide what we are "permitted" to view. We must protect what is rightfully ours.

We must protect the rights of the Internet.

You Are Anonymous
You are legion
You can not forgive this.
You can not forget this.
Expect eRevolution.

Julian Assange scratches his chin and then downs a generous gulp of his pint. "They called me a cat abuser. Now I don't like cats as it turns out, but as far as I know I've never 'abused' one," he says, looking around the table slightly bemused.

The WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief is now arguably the world's most recognisable -- and certainly the most notorious -- champion of free speech.

But he also knows first hand how it feels to be burned by the press, and Assange bristles as he recalls some of the more bizarre personal attacks on his character.

Assange has paid a heavy price for his global crusade against secrecy.

He has been hunted, jailed and put under house arrest. And his activities have subjected him to some of the most hate-filled and violent rhetoric imaginable.

Assange has also been pilloried and abused by certain sections of the media, whose freedoms he continues to fight for.

In an interview with the Irish Independent, the world's most famous whistleblower hit out at the "chilling effect" recent high profile 'super injunctions' have on free speech.

"It's not the case that the press is never wrong. I never maintain that the press is never wrong, and certainly I have been wronged many times by (some) tabloid media.

"However, when we erect a system to address that wrong we can produce a much greater wrong, which is to prevent the press from reporting the abuses of the powerful.

"The problem is that that system is used predominantly -- in fact overwhelmingly -- by people who already have a lot of power. They already have a lot of money, they already know how to use the court system. And so you end up in a situation where newspapers become reluctant to report on the abuses of the powerful, but completely willing to report on the abuses of the powerless, or to defame the powerless, and that is not an acceptable situation. So there has to be a level playing field, there has to be equal access to justice."

Six months ago Assange was -- albeit briefly -- the most famous fugitive in the world. And he remains, in many eyes, the 'public enemy number one', certainly for some of the shadowy US government agencies trying to shut down his organisation.

The interview took place in Ellingham Hall, the mansion on the border of Norfolk and Suffolk where Assange temporarily resides under house arrest while fighting extradition to Sweden. The Swedish authorities want to question Assange over allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape, made by two women, claims he strongly denies.

And he believes if he is extradited to Sweden, the US government will move to have him tried in America for espionage.

"I have been detained -- imprisoned or under house arrest -- without being charged for six months on June 6.

"So almost six months now detained without charge. There are no charges in this case, there is no allegation that there was any lack of consent in these cases -- not even an allegation of that."

His bail conditions stipulate Assange must stay at the 18th century manor, report to police daily and wear an electronic tag. The house is owned by Vaughan Smith, a former captain in the elite Grenadier Guards who was critical in securing bail for Assange.

When he first came to Britain, it was Smith who gave him refuge in an apartment in the Frontline Club -- the West London venue that Smith set up in 2003 to champion independent journalism. On the morning of our interview, Assange was anxious to finish on time. Smith was expecting up to 30 former army comrades for dinner and it was clear his famous guest did not wish to put out his host any more than necessary.

Afterwards, Assange and his assistant Sarah Harrison joined us for a few drinks in a cosy country pub a mile or so down the road. It is about as far as he is allowed to move without consulting the local police station, where he still has to sign on daily as part of his bail conditions.

Despite the enormous pressure he is under, Assange appeared relaxed about his fate and was looking forward to his next court battle -- a two-day High Court hearing on July 12-13 where he will fight a British judge's decision to extradite him to Sweden.

In person, the 39-year-old Australian is unfailingly polite and charming. But behind every carefully constructed sentence lies a remorseless, uncompromising logic, which has put him on a collision course with some of the most powerful forces on the planet.

To his fans, Assange is a valiant campaigner for truth. But to his fiercest critics he is a publicity seeker who has endangered lives by putting a mass of sensitive information into the public domain.

The controversial online activist succeeded in uniting the American Democratic left and Republican right against him and has been described as an "enemy combatant" engaged in a form of cyber terrorism against the US.

Assange said the level of "vitriolic" language that followed the release of the international tranche of US embassy cables last December has "eased off a bit" in recent months.

But he insists that, behind the scenes, the American government will still stop at nothing to silence him.

"The United States has brought out to the public an extremely aggressive response. In private, it is also doing other things.

"That response has been the most aggressive response to an international publisher ever.

"Arguably, if we look at its responses to domestic publishers it has been the most severe response since the McCarthyism era of the early 1950s.

"There has been pressure on many different countries -- individually by the US -- to take action against us.

That pressure on Australia, for instance, resulted in the Australian government publicly announcing that it would suspend my passport, that it would start a whole new government taskforce into us involving domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Defence Department and the Attorney General's office.

"A prospective asylum application in Switzerland on my behalf had the US Ambassador to Switzerland threaten the Swiss government to not accept such an application.

"The sort of public rhetoric that you saw by the (US) vice president (Joe Biden) at the beginning of the year as saying that I was a 'hi-tech terrorist' -- this is being toned down a little bit.

"I think there is a perception that the public rhetoric went too far. But under the surface these investigations continue."

Author: Shane Doran; Source: belfasttelegraph.co.uk

This is the story of your enslavement; how it came to be, and you can finally be free.

Like all animals, human beings want to dominate and exploit the resources around them.

At first, we mostly hunted and fished and ate off the land - but then something magical and terrible happened to our minds.

We became, alone among the animals, afraid of death, and of future loss.

And this was the start of a great tragedy, and an even greater possibility...

You see, when we became afraid of death, of injury, and imprisonment, we became controllable -- and so valuable -- in a way that no other resource could ever be.

The greatest resource for any human being to control is not natural resources, or tools, or animals or land -- but other human beings.

You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very little sense of tomorrow.

You cannot threaten a cow with torture, or a sheep with death. You cannot swing a sword at a tree and scream at it to produce more fruit, or hold a burning torch to a field and demand more wheat.

You cannot get more eggs by threatening a hen - but you can get a man to give you his eggs by threatening him.

Human farming has been the most profitable -- and destructive -- occupation throughout history, and it is now reaching its destructive climax.

Human society cannot be rationally understood until it is seen for what it is: a series of farms where human farmers own human livestock.

Some people get confused because governments provide healthcare and water and education and roads, and thus imagine that there is some benevolence at work.

Nothing could be further from reality.

Farmers provide healthcare and irrigation and training to their livestock.

Some people get confused because we are allowed certain liberties, and thus imagine that our government protects our freedoms.

But farmers plant their crops a certain distance apart to increase their yields -- and will allow certain animals larger stalls or fields if it means they will produce more meat and milk.

In your country, your tax farm, your farmer grants you certain freedoms not because he cares about your liberties, but because he wants to increase his profits.

Are you beginning to see the nature of the cage you were born into?

There have been four major phases of human farming.

The first phase, in ancient Egypt, was direct and brutal human compulsion. Human bodies were controlled, but the creative productivity of the human mind remained outside the reach of the whip and the brand and the shackles. Slaves remained woefully underproductive, and required enormous resources to control.

The second phase was the Roman model, wherein slaves were granted some capacity for freedom, ingenuity and creativity, which raised their productivity. This increased the wealth of Rome, and thus the tax income of the Roman government - and with this additional wealth, Rome became an empire, destroying the economic freedoms that fed its power, and collapsed.

I'm sure that this does not seem entirely unfamiliar.

After the collapse of Rome, the feudal model introduced the concept of livestock ownership and taxation. Instead of being directly owned, peasants farmed land that they could retain as long as they paid off the local warlords. This model broke down due to the continual subdivision of productive land, and was destroyed during the Enclosure movement, when land was consolidated, and hundreds of thousands of peasants were kicked off their ancestral lands, because new farming techniques made larger farms more productive with fewer people.

The increased productivity of the late Middle Ages created the excess food required for the expansion of towns and cities, which in turn gave rise to the modern Democratic model of human ownership.

As displaced peasants flooded into the cities, a huge stock of cheap human capital became available to the rising industrialists - and the ruling class of human farmers quickly realized that they could make more money by letting their livestock choose their own occupations.

Under the Democratic model, direct slave ownership has been replaced by the Mafia model. The Mafia rarely owns businesses directly, but rather sends thugs around once a month to steal from the business "owners."

You are now allowed to choose your own occupation, which raises your productivity - and thus the taxes you can pay to your masters.

Your few freedoms are preserved because they are profitable to your owners.

The great challenge of the Democratic model is that increases in wealth and freedom threaten the farmers. The ruling classes initially profit from a relatively free market in capital and labor, but as their livestock become more used to their freedoms and growing wealth, they begin to question why they need rulers at all.

Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.

Keeping the tax livestock securely in the compounds of the ruling classes is a three phase process.

The first is to indoctrinate the young through government "education." As the wealth of democratic countries grew, government schools were universally inflicted in order to control the thoughts and souls of the livestock.

The second is to turn citizens against each other through the creation of dependent livestock.

It is very difficult to rule human beings directly through force -- and where it can be achieved, it remains cripplingly underproductive, as can be seen in North Korea. Human beings do not breed well or produce efficiently in direct captivity.

If human beings believe that they are free, then they will produce much more for their farmers. The best way to maintain this illusion of freedom is to put some of the livestock on the payroll of the farmer. Those cows that become dependent on the existing hierarchy will then attack any other cows who point out the violence, hypocrisy and immorality of human ownership.

Freedom is slavery, and slavery is freedom.

If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anybody brings up the reality of their situation, then you don't have to spend nearly as much controlling them directly.

Those cows who become dependent upon the stolen largess of the farmer will violently oppose any questioning of the virtue of human ownership -- and the intellectual and artistic classes, always and forever dependent upon the farmers -- will say, to anyone who demands freedom from ownership: "You will harm your fellow cows."

The livestock are kept enclosed by shifting the moral responsibility for the destructiveness of a violent system to those who demand real freedom.

The third phase is to invent continual external threats, so that the frightened livestock cling to the "protection" of the farmers.

This system of human farming is now nearing its end.

The terrible tragedy of the modern American system has occurred not in spite of, but because of past economic freedoms.

The massive increases in American wealth throughout the 19th century resulted from economic freedom -- and it was this very increase in wealth that fed the size and power of the state.

Whenever the livestock become exponentially more productive, you get a corresponding increase in the number of farmers and their dependents.

The growth of the state is always proportional to the preceding economic freedoms.

Economic freedoms create wealth, and the wealth attracts more thieves and political parasites, whose greed then destroys the economic freedoms.

In other words, freedom metastasizes the cancer of the state.

The government that starts off the smallest will always end up the largest.

This is why there can be no viable and sustainable alternative to a truly free and peaceful society.

A society without political rulers, without human ownership, without the violence of taxation and statism...

To be truly free is both very easy, and very hard.

We avoid the horror of our enslavement because it is painful to see it directly.

We dance around the violence of our dying system because we fear the attacks of our fellow livestock.

But we can only be kept in the cages we refuse to see.

Wake up...

To see the farm is to leave it.

VIDEO - RT talks to financial journalist Demetri Kofinas from Athens. Uploaded by RussiaToday on Jun 28, 2011 - Athens police worse than anything we've seen before...