Imagination and financial independence are the enemy of tyrants. We need to work hard to send the darkness back to where it came from in any way we can. Words and financial independence are good ways to do that.
When the digital pirates "disrupted" culture, and "democratized" the process of artistic creation, the quality plummeted. Everyone became conditioned to expect everything for free. Here we are. Two decades later, with cultural degradation beyond any brilliant imagination.
True decentralization would take the attention-value sucked up by Silicon Valley vampires and instead of distributing it all to equity valuations and parasitic speculators, it would be tokenized by an automated Internet that distributes that value back to the original creators. Google digitized the world's libraries without permission from copyright holders and then paid pennies in a court settlement for stealing trillions in intellectual property. There are better ways, and better systems to be built to completely destroy these cultural pirates.
Yes rights come with responsiblity and ownership of our true selves
We are what we eat drink think feel and act I believe.
This is a story I have always read at the final presentations and celebrations of MH/addiction recovery programmes it is aligned with Jons mates
One evening an old Cherokee Indian told his grandson about a battle that was going on inside himself
He said "My son the battle is between two wolves, one wolf is evil anger envey sorrow regret greed arrogance self pity resentment inferiority lies false pride superiority and ego.
The other wolf is good joy peace love hope serenity humility kindness benevolence empathy generosity truth compassion and faith.
The grandson reflected for a while and asked his grandfather "Which wolf wins"
This may be an unusual request. I have very light sensitive eyes so any length of time on a devise is painful (for my eyes)
I bought your first Matrix info several years ago when I had a computer. I only use a phone now and limit my time because of said eyes. I wish to read and study your second Matrix work. Is it at all possible to get this in book form snail mailed. ( PAPER which I love).
I am 79 years here in this zany place and have delved deeply into what’s going on. You are, by far, one of the very few who digs deep deep down into all this craziness. I am an artist whose work is eclectic and imaginative so I understand what you convey Please, if you will be so kind, get back to me and let me know if my request am be fulfilled
It is certain that the people who do not appreciate the value of quality writing is soulless, unimaginative, wooden, shallow, uninspiring, uninteresting, and has tragically lost a large portion of their very humanity.
I like your WEF example. Also, wanting to be that deputy assistant trainee messiah I have seen in different circles and Ive been told by them that someday I will be as evolved as them, only to be comforting them a week or two later from a meltdown or loaning them a few bucks. So, Ive been able to see through some of this and thus Im not always very liked.
Then later running into and reading a free Jon Rappoport article posted on someone elses website, Im thrown a completely new curve ball, that I have never seen before, that I didnt even understand where he was coming from, and it angered the highly spiritually evolved me because it was disclosing to me how much deeper collectivism actually goes, which made me take a new coarse at breaking my own collectivist hypnotic tendencies. It has been an ongoing journey, and will always will be. Am I really offered Value for Value hanging in those past circles or in a Technocratic enslavement, the kind I know is most true? No. Because it wouldn't be approved literature. But even if we did find ourselves in what is being designed for especially us, I'd happily pay for this kind of writing, in any environment. Write on!
Jon- I am in awe of your energy & undaunted fearlessness. I figured you were a bit older than me (75), but Holy Moly!!! In light of all you have written, your blog, your podcasts, and your books, especially, "AIDS, Inc." I am literally in your debt. Just glad there is some tangible $$ way for this old lady to show my appreciation for what you do.
I leave this 56 minutes-long presentation for those who would like to hear a different point of view. Notice that the presentation dates from twelve years before the covidian cult takeover.
I agree with Kinsella: creation is impossible. Everything we do builds upon the previous work of other people. The "new" connections we "create," the special and unique blend anyone prepares is never original in the pure sense of the word, but always derived. Which means Jon has not persuaded me yet to change my opinion on this.
The impossibility of being "original" does not mean we cannot sell our work, in any medium or manner we use to express our thoughts. You don't need to own anything in order to sell it to someone. A simple example is that a sales clerk does not own the goods she is selling. She acts as an agent of the owner, and she may receive a monetary compensation for her work.
A more elaborate example: Jon sells audio recordings of his talks, radio shows, lessons, musings, whatever. He does not own the English language he is using, he does not own the software to record his voice (though he may own the equipment, or he may rent it; but ownership is not necessary for producing a record,) Jon also does not own the electrons that the microphone uses to create a signal, and Jon does not own the loudspeakers that I use to hear his recordings, neither the wattage I pay for when my speakers are producing sound. Yet, I bought his recordings from his agent. And I don't consider his recordings my property. If Jon would sell me a hand painted pottery vase, I would consider the physical object my property, and it would me as much of a property of mine if I bought it or if I received it as a gift. Jon does not own the vase after he sells it, in this example. A physical object cannot be in two places at the same time (maybe Jon disagrees with this?) But Jon could sell a vase painted by another person. And he could be selling the vase because he owns it because he bought it, or because he is just selling art objects as an agent for artists. No ownership is necessary to sell anything.
However, digital products are not rivalrous, meaning that tey can be used by more than one individual at the same time. When I listen to that recording of Jon with a Thomas Jefferson impersonator, tens of thousands of people in the world can listen to it too, at the same time, and their listening is not impeded by my listening.
A digital product can be an economic good, but it is not an "scarce" economic good, just like the language or the letters or the algebra or the numbers are not scarce.
To me, the most interesting part of all this background debate over "intellectual property" in general, and more specifically the "copyright" part, is whether the existence of copyright is damaging the culture by preventing production of new things. If this turns out to be true, then there is a huge contradiction in the work of Jon Rappoport, because he defends the majority opinion that culture, art, writing, production of anything requires special stimulation and protection by the Law. I happen to think that the law of copyright is one of the reasons our entire society is in a deep crisis. I don't think Jon can connect those dots. I don't think it's important that he connects the dots. The troubles in the Western Culture cannot be solved by gaining knowledge of their true causes. The problems of the present are the consequences of the wrong solutions to the problems of the past.
how does copyright contribute to the deep crisis? if someone wracks their brain and presents a unique perspective and does the work to create that said piece, no one should be able to recreate it and call it their own.
Your argument is flawed. First, a law that prohibits a person to do something does not alter reality: if a person is able to do an action A he will still be able to do action A. The existence of the law is only a threat for doing A. The person has to choose if he submits to the threat or rebels against it.
For example, Jon imagines a new painting. He closes his eyes, and begins to compose an image, and plans what materials he's going to use: the shape of the canvas, the knives, the pigments, etc. And then he goes to materialize his image, that only exists in his mind now, and cast it into a tangible reality.
But Jon receives a warning from the SmartToilet who spies his activities: "Jon, it's illegal what you are doing according to the new municipal regulations that restricts unlicensed artistic painting, I'm going to connect with the Goopple service of iSheriff and give notice of your painting without a permit."
But Jon can still paint. The fascists can invent any restriction they want. He does not lose the ability to use painting to throw his ideas to a canvas. He's just under a threat.
This is important. The copyright legislation cannot prevent anyone from copying anything. It's a legal fraud.
You seem to think that it is morally correct to threaten people to not copy the works of others. I disagree.
The real issue is that authors of anything on any medium want money.
They want to sell their written articles, or their cartoons, or their podcasts. for money, to willing customers, or to force the public to pay for their crap, as many painters and sculptors are known to do.
The authors opine, wrongly, that they need a fascistic piece of legislation, like copyright law, in order to sell their stuff.
The are afraid they cannot make money unless the violence of the state restricts the supply of their productions to the public.
This is utterly bollocks on two stilts!
People will purchase anything. People love authors. They want to keep them alive and well fed and warm and cozy. Because people want art and stuff from the authors.
There is no need for legislation.
Realize that anything digital is almost infinitely reproducible. It's different from raising cows for meat. But fascistic copyright legislation does not affect farmers.
Farmers use other forms of fascistic pieces of legislation to keep prices up and quality low, thus maximizing profit.
A cow cannot be copied. A text can be copied. It's easy.
There are goods that are "rivalrous" and goods that are not.
A steak is a rivalrous good because you and I cannot eat the same steak.
A podcast episode is non-rivalrous. Many people can eat that episode with salt and pepper and enjoy every bite of it. Now or three years in the future.
This is the trick of the fascists. They made people think that non-rivalrous goods are rivalrous. People believed it and now we have to endure the violence of unjust laws.
Imagination and financial independence are the enemy of tyrants. We need to work hard to send the darkness back to where it came from in any way we can. Words and financial independence are good ways to do that.
When the digital pirates "disrupted" culture, and "democratized" the process of artistic creation, the quality plummeted. Everyone became conditioned to expect everything for free. Here we are. Two decades later, with cultural degradation beyond any brilliant imagination.
True decentralization would take the attention-value sucked up by Silicon Valley vampires and instead of distributing it all to equity valuations and parasitic speculators, it would be tokenized by an automated Internet that distributes that value back to the original creators. Google digitized the world's libraries without permission from copyright holders and then paid pennies in a court settlement for stealing trillions in intellectual property. There are better ways, and better systems to be built to completely destroy these cultural pirates.
Yes rights come with responsiblity and ownership of our true selves
We are what we eat drink think feel and act I believe.
This is a story I have always read at the final presentations and celebrations of MH/addiction recovery programmes it is aligned with Jons mates
One evening an old Cherokee Indian told his grandson about a battle that was going on inside himself
He said "My son the battle is between two wolves, one wolf is evil anger envey sorrow regret greed arrogance self pity resentment inferiority lies false pride superiority and ego.
The other wolf is good joy peace love hope serenity humility kindness benevolence empathy generosity truth compassion and faith.
The grandson reflected for a while and asked his grandfather "Which wolf wins"
The old Cherokee Indian simply replied
"The one I feed"
You are a machine
In terms of the volume of
Work which you produce
You are a Dalí
In terms of quality of
Work which you produce
Dissemination
creative expression of
Pertinent data
I appreciate
And benefit from your work
Hence why I subscribe
Anyone who thinks
You should do all this for free
Are delusional
This may be an unusual request. I have very light sensitive eyes so any length of time on a devise is painful (for my eyes)
I bought your first Matrix info several years ago when I had a computer. I only use a phone now and limit my time because of said eyes. I wish to read and study your second Matrix work. Is it at all possible to get this in book form snail mailed. ( PAPER which I love).
I am 79 years here in this zany place and have delved deeply into what’s going on. You are, by far, one of the very few who digs deep deep down into all this craziness. I am an artist whose work is eclectic and imaginative so I understand what you convey Please, if you will be so kind, get back to me and let me know if my request am be fulfilled
June Frances
Hi June, how about getting the PDF printed at a copy shop?
It is certain that the people who do not appreciate the value of quality writing is soulless, unimaginative, wooden, shallow, uninspiring, uninteresting, and has tragically lost a large portion of their very humanity.
I like your WEF example. Also, wanting to be that deputy assistant trainee messiah I have seen in different circles and Ive been told by them that someday I will be as evolved as them, only to be comforting them a week or two later from a meltdown or loaning them a few bucks. So, Ive been able to see through some of this and thus Im not always very liked.
Then later running into and reading a free Jon Rappoport article posted on someone elses website, Im thrown a completely new curve ball, that I have never seen before, that I didnt even understand where he was coming from, and it angered the highly spiritually evolved me because it was disclosing to me how much deeper collectivism actually goes, which made me take a new coarse at breaking my own collectivist hypnotic tendencies. It has been an ongoing journey, and will always will be. Am I really offered Value for Value hanging in those past circles or in a Technocratic enslavement, the kind I know is most true? No. Because it wouldn't be approved literature. But even if we did find ourselves in what is being designed for especially us, I'd happily pay for this kind of writing, in any environment. Write on!
Jon- I am in awe of your energy & undaunted fearlessness. I figured you were a bit older than me (75), but Holy Moly!!! In light of all you have written, your blog, your podcasts, and your books, especially, "AIDS, Inc." I am literally in your debt. Just glad there is some tangible $$ way for this old lady to show my appreciation for what you do.
Who is John Galt? Imagine what Ayn Rand would write about today. Her books point to this day actually and how the long con is prevailing
I agree.
you're such a treasure, Jon... I mean it. I adore you and your mind. xo
"In the age of information, people who believe they are literate are making the egregious mistake of equating information, words, and WRITING. "
WIKID - (in reverse order) ... Data, Information, Knowledge, Intelligence, Wisdom.
https://odysee.com/@nskinsella:8/kol012-the-intellectual-property:1
I leave this 56 minutes-long presentation for those who would like to hear a different point of view. Notice that the presentation dates from twelve years before the covidian cult takeover.
I agree with Kinsella: creation is impossible. Everything we do builds upon the previous work of other people. The "new" connections we "create," the special and unique blend anyone prepares is never original in the pure sense of the word, but always derived. Which means Jon has not persuaded me yet to change my opinion on this.
The impossibility of being "original" does not mean we cannot sell our work, in any medium or manner we use to express our thoughts. You don't need to own anything in order to sell it to someone. A simple example is that a sales clerk does not own the goods she is selling. She acts as an agent of the owner, and she may receive a monetary compensation for her work.
A more elaborate example: Jon sells audio recordings of his talks, radio shows, lessons, musings, whatever. He does not own the English language he is using, he does not own the software to record his voice (though he may own the equipment, or he may rent it; but ownership is not necessary for producing a record,) Jon also does not own the electrons that the microphone uses to create a signal, and Jon does not own the loudspeakers that I use to hear his recordings, neither the wattage I pay for when my speakers are producing sound. Yet, I bought his recordings from his agent. And I don't consider his recordings my property. If Jon would sell me a hand painted pottery vase, I would consider the physical object my property, and it would me as much of a property of mine if I bought it or if I received it as a gift. Jon does not own the vase after he sells it, in this example. A physical object cannot be in two places at the same time (maybe Jon disagrees with this?) But Jon could sell a vase painted by another person. And he could be selling the vase because he owns it because he bought it, or because he is just selling art objects as an agent for artists. No ownership is necessary to sell anything.
However, digital products are not rivalrous, meaning that tey can be used by more than one individual at the same time. When I listen to that recording of Jon with a Thomas Jefferson impersonator, tens of thousands of people in the world can listen to it too, at the same time, and their listening is not impeded by my listening.
A digital product can be an economic good, but it is not an "scarce" economic good, just like the language or the letters or the algebra or the numbers are not scarce.
To me, the most interesting part of all this background debate over "intellectual property" in general, and more specifically the "copyright" part, is whether the existence of copyright is damaging the culture by preventing production of new things. If this turns out to be true, then there is a huge contradiction in the work of Jon Rappoport, because he defends the majority opinion that culture, art, writing, production of anything requires special stimulation and protection by the Law. I happen to think that the law of copyright is one of the reasons our entire society is in a deep crisis. I don't think Jon can connect those dots. I don't think it's important that he connects the dots. The troubles in the Western Culture cannot be solved by gaining knowledge of their true causes. The problems of the present are the consequences of the wrong solutions to the problems of the past.
how does copyright contribute to the deep crisis? if someone wracks their brain and presents a unique perspective and does the work to create that said piece, no one should be able to recreate it and call it their own.
Wow, this is an old one.
Hello from the future!
Your argument is flawed. First, a law that prohibits a person to do something does not alter reality: if a person is able to do an action A he will still be able to do action A. The existence of the law is only a threat for doing A. The person has to choose if he submits to the threat or rebels against it.
For example, Jon imagines a new painting. He closes his eyes, and begins to compose an image, and plans what materials he's going to use: the shape of the canvas, the knives, the pigments, etc. And then he goes to materialize his image, that only exists in his mind now, and cast it into a tangible reality.
But Jon receives a warning from the SmartToilet who spies his activities: "Jon, it's illegal what you are doing according to the new municipal regulations that restricts unlicensed artistic painting, I'm going to connect with the Goopple service of iSheriff and give notice of your painting without a permit."
But Jon can still paint. The fascists can invent any restriction they want. He does not lose the ability to use painting to throw his ideas to a canvas. He's just under a threat.
This is important. The copyright legislation cannot prevent anyone from copying anything. It's a legal fraud.
You seem to think that it is morally correct to threaten people to not copy the works of others. I disagree.
The real issue is that authors of anything on any medium want money.
They want to sell their written articles, or their cartoons, or their podcasts. for money, to willing customers, or to force the public to pay for their crap, as many painters and sculptors are known to do.
The authors opine, wrongly, that they need a fascistic piece of legislation, like copyright law, in order to sell their stuff.
The are afraid they cannot make money unless the violence of the state restricts the supply of their productions to the public.
This is utterly bollocks on two stilts!
People will purchase anything. People love authors. They want to keep them alive and well fed and warm and cozy. Because people want art and stuff from the authors.
There is no need for legislation.
Realize that anything digital is almost infinitely reproducible. It's different from raising cows for meat. But fascistic copyright legislation does not affect farmers.
Farmers use other forms of fascistic pieces of legislation to keep prices up and quality low, thus maximizing profit.
A cow cannot be copied. A text can be copied. It's easy.
There are goods that are "rivalrous" and goods that are not.
A steak is a rivalrous good because you and I cannot eat the same steak.
A podcast episode is non-rivalrous. Many people can eat that episode with salt and pepper and enjoy every bite of it. Now or three years in the future.
This is the trick of the fascists. They made people think that non-rivalrous goods are rivalrous. People believed it and now we have to endure the violence of unjust laws.