12 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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"

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I agree.

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment