Before, there was an Internet; now it’s a “legitimate library”!

The book industry CAN win over the whole globe.


The English speaking Book industry centered in USA – “a coalition of the world’s largest book publishers including Cambridge University Press, Harper Collins, Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons” – has managed to shut down possibly the largest private book repository in the world with public access, containing among its 400.000 downloadable books enough copyright violation works to have a court judge warrent an order of closure.

The Publishers cheered. “It is a victory”, said  Stephen M. Smith, President and CEO of John Wiley & Sons. “This action reflects our commitment to protecting secure, safe, and legitimate use of the Internet”.

Legitimate use of the Internet! Are they crazy? Or plain stupid!?

Their BS-spin is cooking up pretense agendas – as if the internet was a road and it had been taken over by robbers stifling progress for all and the way forward was to rid the road of robbers.

It’s quite the reverse, actually! The Publishers acting on behalf of everyone become the robbers, wanting to hold back natural evolution, and the road connects everyone with everyone.

The Internet is the World, brothers and sisters. The Internet is the world speaking to itself, and the powers that be are doing their damndest to stop the World from developing.

The world is not just using the Internet,

the World is being shaped by the ability of people to communicate instantaneously, and it is happening fast.

Yes, you are afraid, and naturally so:

Everything is verging towards a massive change – what doom sayers need call “a collapse of the old ways”. The natural response of government and real power is to try and stall the progress, to give businesses time to adjust – have the economic structure invent itself to retain a high motivational factor in order to keep the wheels turning, even if there is not much hope. Then war will step in, or famine, or natural disasters, or TV, or plain threats of loss of more jobs, or food (food is not quite an issue yet in the western world), something will come about, which will be aided, orchestered in the desired direction by the Powers that be, towards a retention of stability – by shifting the world’s attention to easy, understandable, physical occurances, and away from abstract change in the freedom of expressing needs and opinions.

Yes, yes, yes, you are right. Lack of cohesion IS setting in. And the fault is in communication – in your blatant disregard for what communicative desire IS:

We all create with our minds. Creation in a human being is a communication process adjusting inner needs and talents to outer needs and limitations. Creation means acknowledging both needs and change. Creating more ways to hang on to power and earn more money IS creation in the sense of the word, you could say. All creatures resist death, in any way possible, by shedding all factors of existence that present themselves as burdens.

Same with big business. Big, old mono-businesses have no momentum to be inventive players like all small businesses rushing to accommodate change, and begin the process of dieing, which to some is a horrible thing, while to others just the balance ever so slowly shifting towards an inner collapse. And in that process  the old ones stand in the way of the creativity and devolopment of the rest.

Such refusal to roll over and die is very well, and even encouraging too. But when dinosaurs of the book industry refuse to change, refuse to invent technology and go first, refuse to accept other people doing it for them, and when they can have the power to turn the global network into a pet from their own fear, lazyness and lack of flexibility in a changing world, and when they present their refusal to neither die nor change by claiming moral superiority over the rest of the world, as in “our commitment to protecting secure, safe, and legitimate use of the Internet”, its time to


There are many ways to affect change. People could be guided, but nobody powerful wishes to guide them. People could be consoled, but nobody powerful possess neither sufficient heart nor responsibility or means of consolation. The empowerment is coming from below instead. Call it “a revolution”, if you will, but just remember: A revolution is not always a succes. A revolution, a turning of the cards, can lose by succeding. It can die in the instant the troops (i.e. people) start poring in. And become mainstream, and nobody sees or notices it. And all the industries will rush to exploit its present potential of momentum.

The right word in this regard is evolution. And that just happens, no matter what. It counts the factors of every action, every opinion, every occurrence, every shift in the equilibrium. But what is inside this is freedom to shape the future from your own needs and regard for necessities, quality and essence. Except you are bound by law.

The book industry, along with all the other copyright moguls, have the law on their side. The law of ownership keeping the world economy and industry stable. They CAN win over the whole globe on the pretext of protecting stability.

IF that happens, they themselves will wish that they had been able to pull out of their abject refusal to step down and let flexible initiative take over. The consequences of the refusal to die of all the old World right-owership coalitions are that monitoring and privacy violations will see a marked increase in stress related deaths. Lowered life expectancy in the western world, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the arab world. A brief new flood of physical mail as a way of retaining privacy. Then illegal subnets. Then back to status quo. There is NO way of stifling communication and creation that has tasted the freedom of access to a bigger world.  Only misery will follow from trying to stop individuals’ need for expansion into the minds of everyone else.

Ahead lies only total monitoring, or letting go. Demand for security converging with rising desire of privacy. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg, and flocks of anti-restriction memes will soon inhabit the space of “Free Will”, if nothing is done about this habit of trying to control the masses.

We are the masses. The Earth. The 99%.

Un-controling the masses has never been done, I think. Letting go of the leash, after the fact of control. Not in any age. So, history serves as no indicator of un-controlled masses, other in a very limited fashion – in times of war and civil disturbances.

The future in that regard is a blank slate, and the economy and thus personal empowement springing from capitalism demand it stay relatively blank for the masses. And the only way to that goal is through control. Control on a global scale makes the future predictable, for the select few to benefit from, and everyone else to fall in line behind. On a moral high ground to protect the world from itself…

Is this better than the freedom to fail?

Inspirative source:

Facetslebne tanker: Diamanter

Diamonds are forever… Og lad venligst være med at sælge dem igen.


Der er mange måder at tjene penge på. Ikke alle er lige åbenlyse.

At små stykker slebent, hårdpresset kul, hvis fremmeste egenskaber i slebet tilstand er evnen til at skære i glas og reflektere lys, gennem årelangt og hensynsløst reklamearbejde kunne gøres til både en verdensindustri, en statsuafhængig møntfod OG et ikon for mennesker på alle niveauer i samfundet er måske ikke så ufatteligt, når man ser den styrke, der stråler ud af kvinder med mange diamanter på sig.

I 1870 gjordes et enormt fund af diamanter ved Orange River i Sydafrika. Indtil da var diamanter relativt sjældne og deres værdi helt og holdent et produkt af deres relative sjældenhed.

Investorerne bag minen, der frygtede at markedet skulle blive oversvømmet, dannede et konsortium til at håndtere udbredelsen og opretholde illusionen om diamanters sjældenhed – De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. med hovedkvarter i Sydafrika. Inden længe sad de på den totale udbredelse af diamanter i verden.

Under depressionen i 20’erne og 30’erne faldt salget af diamanter dramatisk og verdensmarkedsprisen halveredes. For at bevare kontrollen over prisen, iværksatte De Beers en massiv kampagne til styrkelse af bevidstheden om værdien af diamanten som symbol – en illusion om diamanten som en investering, man aldrig solgte videre: at selve dét aldrig at behøve at sælge sin/e diamant/er betød, at man bevarede sin rigdom, magt og attråværdighed.

I en reklamekampagne indgår mange psykologiske faktorer, som både indregner “massen” og mænd og kvinders handlemønstre.

Som mand finder jeg følgende meget interessant:

Det gik op for diamantfirmaet, at givelsen af en diamant rummede en stor “overraskelseseffekt” mellem giveren, manden, og modtageren, kvinden. Studier viste, at kvinder foretrækker at blive overrasket, ikke blot for glæden ved at blive givet en gave, hvortil der var knyttet et billede af stor kærlighed, men også fordi en sådan DYR gave, som hun ikke selv har været med til at vælge, kommer uden vedhæftet skyld…!

Kvinder over en bred kam er så praktiske, at det er svært for dem at købe noget dyrt uden at føle sig skyldig. Hvilket er derfor de sætter pris på mænd, der kan købe ting til dem – kender deres smag, tøjstørrelse osv. – fordi det holder dem fri for skyld. Og den mand, der holder sin kvinde fri for skyld, bliver elsket for dét, også. (Og så er det lige meget, om det må byttes, for det ér allerede købt!) *

Reklamerne opnåede at få manden til at se givelsen af en diamant som et “symbol på kærlighed”, mens kvinden “fik lov” til at betragte den som et håndgribeligt symbol på hendes status og præstationer (sen-70’erne).


Diamantkonsordiets reklamekampagnen var og ér så vellykket, at diamanter endnu i dag helt naturligt forbindes med noget evigt DYRT og eksklusivt. Fabrikationen af illusionen om diamanten som havende en egenværdi rangerer oppe blandt de vigtigste 10 illusioner skabt af reklameindustrien (en anden er konsumerjulemanden, cementeret i alverdens bevidsthed af Coca Cola…)

Illusionen om egenværdi er ikke selvfølgelig. Diamantkonsordiet er hver ny generation nødt til at trække i diamantkostumet og med massive reklamekampgner og nye slogans nødt til at foregive, at diamanter evigt symboliserer og repræsenterer kærligheden mellem to mennesker. Så forbrugerne, trods verdensmarkedets svingninger og nye produkter på markedet, fortsat investerer i diamanter til deres elskede –  men det er en succes, der er et dobbeltægget sværd.

Kapitalspillere behøver ting af vedvarende værdi på markedet at lægge deres penge i, når krisen kradser, og så effektiv har reklamekampagnen været, at selv de største investorer har slugt maddingen med blink og det hele og tror på, at diamanter lig guld har en vedvarende handelsværdi at investere i. Men dag kan ingen købe en diamant og få det samme for den ved salg… Der er så utroligt mange diamanter i verden, at hvis blot 1% forsøgte at sælge deres diamant/er, ville hele diamantmarkedet kollapse på stedet og trække en stor del af kapitalmarkedet med ned!

Men okay – skulle jeg sondre imellem den gavegivne diamant som symbol på den meget nødvendige kærlighed mellem mennesker, og en  verdensmarkedspris, der holdes oppe til når kærligheden forsvinder, ved jeg godt hvilken værdiansættelse, jeg vil vælge.

Come on – det er sgu da nemt, er det ikke!?

Godt nytår!

Kenneth Krabat, 31.12. 2010


Through a series of “projective” psychological questions, meant “to draw out a respondent’s innermost feelings about diamond jewelry,” the study attempted to examine further the semi-passive role played by women in receiving diamonds. The male-female roles seemed to resemble closely the sex relations in a Victorian novel. “Man plays the dominant, active role in the gift process. Woman’s role is more subtle, more oblique, more enigmatic….” The woman seemed to believe there was something improper about receiving a diamond gift. Women spoke in interviews about large diamonds as “flashy, gaudy, overdone” and otherwise inappropriate. Yet the study found that “Buried in the negative attitudes … lies what is probably the primary driving force for acquiring them. Diamonds are a traditional and conspicuous signal of achievement, status and success.” It noted, for example, “A woman can easily feel that diamonds are ‘vulgar’ and still be highly enthusiastic about receiving diamond jewelry.” The element of surprise, even if it is feigned, plays the same role of accommodating dissonance in accepting a diamond gift as it does in prime sexual seductions: it permits the woman to pretend that she has not actively participated in the decision. She thus retains both her innocence—and the diamond.

The Diamond Invention

DR’s nedlægning 1

Når du køber tomater, køber du altid dem, der er helt smattede og ikke holder længere end 10 minutter. Ikke? Og når du indgår et parforhold, vælger du bevidst en partner, der er utiltalende, løgnagtig, utro og aldrig nærværende. Ikke? Og hvad som helst du beskæftiger dig med er altid det mest kedelige, uinspirerende, tomme, åndsforladte, du kan finde. Ikke? Og i næste uge skal du ind og have lavet din årlige lobotomi, bare for at være på den sikre side. Ikke?

Ikke nikke nej, vel!?

Skal dårlig forvaltning og en ultra-højredrejende regering have lov til at lukke munden på alle i DRs radio, som har en selvstændig mening, mener noget med det de gør, tør forfølge historier ingen andre gør, tør risikere at være kedelige for at komme i dybden, og informerer fra HELE Danmark og ALLE steder i verden, snarere end blot fra Københavns pop-overgrund og politisk sanktionerede demokratier?

Vi bliver alle sammen fattigere for hvert et kulturprogram, der forsvinder fra DRs radio. På alle måder. Man kan ikke, efter at have klippet den historiske tråd, uden videre tage den op igen og spinde videre – ikke bare vente til de politiske vinde skifter – ikke bare håbe, at det går væk af sig selv. Undertrykkelse går ikke væk af sig selv.

SKRIV UNDER på en fredning af DRs radio – og kan du gøre mere end det, skrive og debattere, begræde, harme! på din egen blog eller i læserbreve, så gør dét! Men GØR noget:

Sig nej til ødelæggelsen af danskernes Daglige Realitet – vi har intet andet medie, som på samme måde forbinder os alle sammen. Tænk over dét: Intet andet fællesmedie, som taler til os alle, uden at tale ned! Uden reklamer! Danmark, Døgnet Rundt!