Home Social Engineering Google and th...

Google and the World Brain

by -
3 280

Jon Rappoport


In a BBC documentary, “Google and the World Brain,” the issue of author copyright is explored. Google has scanned and published out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright.

Interviewed, Kevin Kelly (twitter) (also here and here), the co-founder of Wired, makes a startling remark. In his view the whole issue of copyright is archaic. He explains that all authors draw their ideas from previous authors and therefore don’t own their own ideas.

It’s wonderful to witness such bloviating on the cusp of the New Civilization, in which “you didn’t build that” is taken to unprecedented levels. Kelly should start a publishing firm; all his authors would work for free. After all, nothing is original, nothing is new, and these writers are merely rearranging other people’s words.

You might be surprised at how many people actually believe this tripe Kelly is passing along.

It’s part of the vastly expanding operation aimed at the individual.

The “modern” position is, we’re all one great big group. Kelly adds an historical touch. We’re just recycling the past.

Rimbaud was just redoing Shelley. Dylan Thomas was adding a few exhibitionist touches to Shakespeare, who was aping Sophocles. Plato was mimicking generations of Egyptian high priests. Socrates was staging dialogues based on arguments between cave men.

If we could climb into a time machine, we could travel back to the age of the Neanderthals and find all subsequent ideas of any value in their conversations. Certainly.

And I’m sure the Neanderthals were stealing thoughts after listening to what ants and gorillas and cabbages were saying.

The individual imagines and creates? Ho-ho-ho. Ridiculous. Kelly has put a lid on that fiction. Perhaps he’ll publish a list of authors from whom he’s borrowed, and then we can read their work and ignore his.

Yes, it’s all spiritual collectivism, and we’re melting down into one cosmic goo-glob, and it’s marvelous. Everything is free.

“It’s all information” is the code phrase, as if all data are like all other data, and therefore diminished—in which case “information is power” means degraded and shrunken power.

When it comes to intelligence—that is, actual intelligence—the capacity to see how a book is unique, rather than “like” another book, is far more important than the perception of sameness.

And Kevin Kelly notwithstanding, the individual creator is real, not a fiction.

A book isn’t just a whole bunch of data, and it isn’t just a whole lot of borrowing and reshuffling from past authors.

The very basis of meaning, without which we would all be swimming in a sea of gibberish, isn’t a phenomenon of the Group. Meaning ultimately comes down to each individual and his perception. We may share a common language, but individuals shape it and individuals understand it. Or don’t.

The move to wipe out the entire concept of the individual and erase it from human consciousness is a propaganda op. It is far easier to wield control over a group.

“We” isn’t an advanced form of “I.”

Here is where things are heading: “I/we is/are together.” Then: “We are together.” Then: “We.” Then: Nothing. Oblivion.

The failure to see this is a direct consequence of the failure of a person to know he is an individual.

That Google would even consider digitizing and publishing books that are still under copyright, that still belong to the author, reveals how casual their concept of the individual is.

“Just another greedy mega-corporation” doesn’t capture what is really going on here.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com



Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years.He is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.In 1982, the LA Weekly submitted his name for a Pulitzer prize, for his interview with the president of El Salvador University, where the military had taken over the campus.Jon has hosted, produced, and written radio programs and segments in Los Angeles and Las Vegas (KPFK, KLAV). He has appeared as a guest on over 200 radio and television programs, including ABC's Nightline, Tony Brown's Journal (PBS), and Hard Copy.In 1994, Jon ran for a seat in the US Congress from the 29th district in Los Angeles. After six months of campaigning, on a very small budget, he garnered 20 percent of the vote running against an incumbent who had occupied his seat for 20 years.In 1996, Jon started The Great Boycott, against eight corporate chemical giants: Monsanto, Dow, Du Pont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhone-Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries, and Ciba-Geigy. The Boycott continues to operate today.Jon has lectured extensively all over the US on the question: Who runs the world and what can we do about it?Since 2000, Jon has operated largely away from the mainstream because, as he puts it, "My research was not friendly to the conventional media."Over the last 30 years, Jon's independent research has encompassed such areas as: deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, the potential of the human imagination, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites.He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power.A painter, Jon's work has been shown in galleries in Los Angeles and New York. His poetry has been published by The Massachusetts Review.He is a graduate of Amherst College (BA, Philosophy), and lives with his wife, Dr. Laura Thompson, in San Diego.


  1. There’s only one problem: if authors do make their lives from it.
    To have a lineage in your “masters”, to belong to a particular concept (I mean art, music, before other issues), to be a disciple of some “school” or group, if on one hand it means also not to be the original founder of that style (although we anyway can easily number several artists who produced absolutely new pieces of art), on the other hand can make the artist to provide as well art-products considered some way new and as such, as original.

    Writers. Do the writers use a personal style? Is it a matter of style or what?
    If we buy a book, it is not because of its cover (well, when I was a kid I used to buy LP’s by their covers and sometimes the result was really interesting) but of the content of it. And the content is, anyway, something personal, absolutely personal (I hope). That “product” cannot be confused with some other’s product, book.
    If you want to enjoy a product of mine, as I invest in time and culture and in many cases also survey and travels and whistleblowers, you must make me able to survive and if my product is better (whatever the parameters for judging it as such) than another, I, as the author, deserve to be honored. Well.

    So, it is good to consider the sharing of other’s information as a first sign (clue) of the change of the Ages (?) but only if in an environment where ALL the participating people give each one their contribute, more or less comparable with the other’s ones. This is (could be) a perfect (and ideal) scenario.

    It remains the problem that if I waste my time giving and doing for free (waste=invest) someone else should provide for my sustenance and surviving. Otherwise, in few time I’ll stop producing ideas and objects and books and with me in few time (better: soon) there would not be any creativity, any art, any music.

    Communist governments used to give a monthly salary to the artists in order to let them survive and produce without the need to “sell” and to face the “market”.
    Naturally they should have done only the things agreed by the power and this treatment was given only to those who belonged to the lists of “approved” artists. LOL.
    That’s why cannot exist such an ideal sharing of free information. At least until the goods will be sold in the shops and not given out for free. ;-)

  2. It may be difficult to come up with an original thought. Do we fault the chef that he did not create the cow, the egg, the flour, the vegetable? No we appreciate the chef’s creativity at blending the preexisting ingredients. Good chefs are well paid and they deserve the money. So do good writers

  3. Bad-Clown’s gonna edumacates yous all on this topic – so gets ready!

    Forgets the capitalist / commie nonsense; forgets the individual / collective nonsense – that’s all polarity ‘n distraction! Let’s talk shop – PRODUCTION!

    Maybe copyright / intellectual property is a valid concept:
    (1) if PRODUCTION, whether literature, music, paintin’s or other object-goods, comes from a individual what exists in total isolation; and/or,
    (2) if the VALUE of PRODUCTION is solely generated by the producer, and the consumer what enjoys it contributes nuthin’ to the producer / consumer cycle.

    As far as I knows, that ain’t the case:
    (1) no producer exists in isolation; and
    (2) the consumer brings at least some of the value to object-goods, otherwise he wouldn’t buys it. Ya can’t sells Bad-Clown RAP-music, but ya can sells it to the brain-dead ‘cause the brain-dead’s MIND brings value to it.

    And it also be true: there ain’t nuthin’ new under the sun. That be more obvious in the “arts”, where “new” form’s a permutation of historical form. Not only is there only so many notes what peoples can hears, the music-consumer’s MIND makes music from ‘dem strings of vibrations! The same be true for other object-goods; the “new” form permutates / assembles / augments existing forms.

    Here’s somethin’ else for yous to thinks about. The value of new PRODUCTION always declines over time. Does yous value yer 60” HiDef TV as much as yer first 6” black ‘n white? NO! ‘Cause new PRODUCTION mimics the decline in human intelligence over time. Our smarts is droppin’ like Obama’s approval rating, and as we becomes dumber ‘n dumber, so does the stuff we makes! They should be payin’ us to consumes it – and sometimes they does!

    Intellectual property ‘n copyrights is a fraud – a fraud what holds us back. IT PREVENTS US FROM BECOMING AS STUPID AS WE HAS TO BECOME TO ENDS THIS POLAR EXISTENCE, TO EVOLVES! (Yous can sees Bad-Clown is doin’ his part, and that’s fer sure!)

    Fer them what spew “free market”, let the producers PRODUCE ‘n the bootleggers KNOCK-OFF, and the consumers decide. But their “free market” is always a disguised form of monopoly! Their “free market” needs lawyers ‘n courts ‘n prison guards, ALWAYS!

    Fer them what spew “individual creativity”, ain’t they never heard of starvin’ artists? Unless he’s starvin’, he’s a hack – that’s what I say!


Leave a Reply