Who Invented the Internet? (It Wasn't Al Gore)

The internet is a product of American ingenuity. Although Al Gore infamously said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," its creation actually predated him by decades. Vannevar Bush invented the first modern analogue computer in 1930 --- and the concept behind what would become known as the internet.

"The concept was something called memex, which I like better than the internet myself. Memex. Yeah, better name," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Memex was a way to store all of the world's information, like a giant brain or memory bank.

WATCH: Freedom Fighter Ted Cruz Leads Charge to Keep the Internet Away From Liberal Censors

"At first, the idea was to tie it all together on microfilm. Most people refer to the article that he wrote in the Atlantic in 1945 called "As We May Think". This was the first public unveiling of a broader collective memory machine. Because, really, it's not a machine, but that is what the internet is. It's just collective memories. And you have access to that brain of memories and ideas," Glenn said.

Xerox, credited for inventing the Ethernet, also played a key role.

"Xerox, with Robert Taylor, who was influential in the creation of the internet, both at DARPA and then as an employee of Xerox, maintains that The origins of the internet include both work sponsored by the government and Xerox PARC. So you can't say that the internet was developed by Xerox or the government. It was both. But if anyone should get the credit for the creation of the internet, it's the guy named Vannevar . . . and a guy named Robert Taylor," Glenn said.

Should Al Gore want to take credit for creating the internet, it doesn't quite reconcile with his green energy and global warming positions. According to the New York Times, worldwide server farms for the internet use 30 billion watts of electricity. Data centers on average use only six to 12 percent of the electricity powering their servers to perform any kind of computations. The rest of the electricity is used just in case there's a surge of activity.

"In other words, about 90 percent of it, 88 percent of it is completely wasted energy. So, Al, I want everyone to know that Al Gore wants to take credit for the creation of something that wastes 90 percent of 30 billion watts of electricity. It sounds pretty green," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So let me tell you a little bit about the truth about the internet because Pat just played the truth.

PAT: The truth.

GLENN: The truth. Here, it is, the inventor of the internet.

AL: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.

GLENN: He created the internet. How can he say that?

PAT: How do you say that?

GLENN: I'll show you how he says that.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Let me go back to the very beginning, to the very beginning. The internet starts with a concept in 1930. And the concept was something which was called memex, which I like better than the internet myself. Memex. Yeah, better name.

Memex was a concept developed by a guy named Vannevar. Now, that's his first name. I'll give you his last name in a minute.

But Vannevar --

PAT: Well, his last name is Internet.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Vannevar Internet. No?

GLENN: No. Vannevar invented the first modern analogue computer in 1930.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And his idea of memex was a way to store all of the world's information using computers tied together.

At first, the idea was to tie it all together on microfilm. And most people refer to the article that he wrote in the Atlantic -- in 1945, it was called As We May Think. And this was the first public unveiling of a broader collective memory machine. Because, really, it's not a machine, but that is what the internet is. It's just -- it's collective memories. And you have access to that brain of memories and ideas.

Now, at the time when he wrote this in 1945, he was working as the chairman of the national defense research committee. So he was working for the government at the time he wrote that. But not at the time he had this original idea.

Yes, Pat.

PAT: Well, isn't that why DARPA hired him in the first place? They were impressed with his work.

GLENN: Do you know, Stu?

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's a part of the reason why --

PAT: Yeah, I think that's why they were attracted to him in the first place.

STU: I mean, think about it. That's the exact reverse of what you're told though. This is a man who came up, as a private citizen, with an amazing idea, and the government hired him because of that idea.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's not the government creating it.

GLENN: And this is the government seeing what -- what the Nazis and the Japanese had done with the enigma machine. How did we -- the enigma machine changed everything. We've got to have computers because digitization is going to change everything. It's change the game. And so the Defense Department knew in 1945, "Holy cow, we are way behind." Especially the Germans, "We are way behind. We better come up with something." And so they start looking, and they find this guy named Vannevar. And they hire him after he writes As We May Think.

Now, he had been writing about the memex concept since the early 1930s. And he didn't start working for the government until 1938.

So he didn't invent the government -- he didn't invent the internet for the government. His invention, the internet, was one of the reasons why he was hired by the government.

So it isn't to say that the government -- more specifically, the military wasn't highly involved in the development of the internet from concept to reality, but I think it's really important to not give the government the credit, but the military credit. If there's one thing this government does effectively, it is the military.

STU: And this is the only time in history that the left gives the military credit for anything.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: All of a sudden, they're, we love the -- they're the government. See what we're saying. The government is inventing things.

All of a sudden they love the work the military has done.

GLENN: Yeah, except they'll never say that. They just call the military the government.

STU: The government.

GLENN: So by the time Al Gore was 21 -- 21 -- the backbone of the internet, Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, ARPANET, had already been commissioned. So here's the backbone, ARPANET: Al Gore is 21.

And what did he just say?

AL: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Wow. Wow. So when he was in Congress --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: But ARPANET was already being built when he was 21. And they laid the groundwork starting as a network to connect research computers one to another.

Now, in 1982, ARPANET linked together a grand total of 88 computers.

PAT: Which at that time was probably pretty good.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, that was huge. That was huge.

PAT: That was amazing.

GLENN: Eighty-two computers. Now, what the government did for the internet was foundational, but rather worthless to your everyday life. The unique thing the government brings to the table for projects like this is unlimited access to your money.

Now, they took this idea. They gobbled it up with unlimited access to your money. This is what they came up with, linking them to 88 computers.

Can you imagine if -- if the people at the very beginning, the private sector, had unlimited access. If Vannevar would have had unlimited access to your money, do you think maybe there may have been more than 88 computers put together, especially if there was the profit incentive at the other end? Wait a minute. I have to eventually get this to pay for itself. How does this work? How can this benefit a lot of people?

Al Gore couldn't even fathom the internet being created without the government funds -- your money -- as he detailed in his 1991 article for Scientific America: Infrastructure For the Global Village. A high-capacity network will not be built without government investment. Congress must formulate the policies that are crucial to realizing the potential of the Information Age. Just as the Interstate Highway System was built with federal funds, so too will high-speed networks require federal seed capital.

So here's what Al Gore did, and you're going to love this. Al Gore was very successful at using your money. He sponsored the High-Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991.

This is what it did: He took $600 million and poured it into high-performance computing. And with that $600 million, here's what he made.

Have you ever -- have you ever heard of the web browser Mosaic?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what the government did. That's what Al Gore gave you. Al Gore gave you a really crappy web browser that nobody uses. That's what he did.

Yes, the government advanced the internet, but what turned the internet from a boring network of 88 computers to the things you post a picture of, you know, of your oatmeal in the morning or, you know, Anthony Weiner's wiener, was the private sector. And more specifically, it was Xerox.

Xerox is credited for inventing the Ethernet, the graphical user interface. You know, I have on the set of The Vault, which premieres next week, is an Apple IIc. Have you guys turned that on? Have you guys seen that? Have you been in The Vault?

PAT: I've seen that, but I haven't turned it on.

GLENN: Oh, my --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: This is what I used to write scripts with. I mean, when it came out in, what, 1982, '83. And so I turned it on. And I'm like, "Oh, my gosh. I haven't sat behind this computer since the 1980s."

And it does nothing.

(chuckling)

GLENN: It does nothing. My son looked at it. He's like, "Dad, this is great." And I said, "You want to play a game on it?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "You can't."

(laughter)

So Xerox -- Xerox, with Robert Taylor, who was influential in the creation of the internet, both at DARPA and then as an employee of Xerox, maintains that, quote, the origins of the Internet include both work sponsored by the government and Xerox PARC. So you can't say that the internet was developed by Xerox or the government. It was both.

But if anyone should get the credit for the creation of the internet, it's the guy named Vannevar. Not last name. First name, Vannevar. And a guy named Robert Taylor.

So I just want to -- I want to wrap it up with a couple things. First of all, Al Gore, he wants credit for inventing the internet. We know that's not true. But he also wants to be known as the guy who conserves energy and is a guy who is saying we can't use all this energy. We have to be green.

Let me just give you this: According to the New York Times, that bastion of conservatism, they found that server farms for the internet, server farms worldwide use 30 billion watts of electricity. But, wait, Al, it gets better.

Data centers on average use only six to 12 percent of the electricity powering their servers to perform any kind of computations. The rest of the electricity is used just in case there's a surge of activity.

So, in other words, about 90 percent of it, 88 percent of it is completely wasted energy.

So, Al, I want everyone to know that Al Gore wants to take credit for the creation of something that wastes 90 percent of 30 billion watts of electricity. It sounds pretty green.

Oh, and one more thing: Just -- there's no relation, but just to make everybody feel better, if you have my point of view and everybody who really loves Al Gore, it will make them feel really, really bad, and I don't want to be one that rubs salt in the wound at all, but Al Gore didn't invent it: Vannevar did.

And his last name is not Gore. His last name happens to be Bush. Just thought I'd leave you at that.

Featured Image: Vannevar Bush seated at a desk. This portrait is credited to "OEM Defense", the Office for Emergency Management (part of the United States Federal Government) during World War II; it was probably taken some time between 1940 and 1944.

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders joined Glenn Beck on this week's podcast to share her unique perspective as a trusted adviser and confidante to President Donald Trump for two and a half years, which she also details in her new book, "Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of Our Lives Inside the Trump White House."

Sarah described the unprecedented levels of corruption she saw firsthand during the Russia probe and shocking lengths to which Democratic leaders and the mainstream media would go to "take the president down."

Sarah said she often saw sides of Donald Trump that the media never covered. Recently, she went on the record denying the Atlantic's claims that the president mocked our military during a 2018 trip to France. She was on that trip, she told Glenn, and her account of what really happened paints a very different picture.

"The people who are making this outrageous charge are such cowards for doing so in an anonymous way. If you really believed this, and believed it was wrong, one, why did it take you so long? And, two, put your name on it the way the rest of us have," Sarah said.

"He didn't say those things. Not only was I there that day, Glenn, I spent two and a half years traveling all over the world with the president, watching him interact with men and women of our armed forces almost every single day during that two-and-a-half year period," she added.

"This is a person who loves America and loves the people who allow the rest of us to live in America, free, and have prosperity. And I got to see that a lot. I think it is shameful that people are trying to distort who he is and what he has done, particularly when it comes to the men and women in the military."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Sarah Huckabee Sanders below:

Find the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.


Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The Daily Beast recently reported on a group of 50-plus leading progressive organizations that calls itself the Fight Back Table or FBT, who are planning for a "post-Election Day political apocalypse scenario."

The FBT held a meeting on Zoom to launch an initiative they dubbed the "Democracy Defense Nerve Center." Meeting participants prepared for expected threats to a fair election in November, such as "armed right-wing militia dudes show[ing] up in polling places," or poll locations that "mysteriously close" on Election Day. They also predicted that President Donald Trump would claim victory regardless of November's election results, which would lead to inevitable "mass public unrest."

"It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what ... we will fight to protect [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path," said MoveOn Executive Director Rahna Epting.

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program," Glenn argued that the left is using large-scale mail-in voting — which unlike absentee ballots does not require voters to submit an application ahead of the election — to set the stage for chaos, revolution, and ultimately cause civil war to destroy our nation.

"No one will believe the [election] outcome because they're changing the way we're electing a president this time. And people don't understand the difference ... this is Democratic states just printing ballots and mass mailing them," Glenn said.

"They've been war-gaming this forever," he continued. "And the media is trying to make it look as if the right is the one that is violent. We're not planning anything to happen on Election Day, except to go and vote. The chaos that's coming, I think is remarkable. And if the DOJ doesn't get involved and find out who these groups are and what they have planned, you are going to have intimidation and chaos the week of the voting, and for weeks [afterward] until we go into civil war. This is not hyperbole. This is what the left is now saying."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Netflix film 'Cuties' is darker than you thought

'Cuties'/Netflix

Plague. Recession. Riots. Looting. Fires. Murder Hornets. And now, as we round the third base toward the home stretch, 2020 gives us Cuties, a delightful French coming-of-age film by Maïmouna Doucouré that's half Stand by Me and half Coyote Ugly – if you were to combine both films into an anthropomorphic entity and then forcefully dip its toe into the perilous waters of pedophilia.

Cuties begins by showing us an 11-year-old Senegalese girl named Amy, whose fundamentalist Muslim family has recently moved to France. We learn that Amy's father has gone back to Senegal to bring home the woman who is to become his second wife. The mother's struggle is very clear to Amy, who begins right then and there to develop a hatred for her father. She starts looking for ways to rebel, and soon lands in the company of a group of ne'er-do-well girls, who fancy themselves dancers and have adopted the group name "Cuties". Their primary goal in life at the moment – and the thing that drives the film's narrative – is to participate in and win the big dance competition coming up soon. The ring-leader – a dark-haired bespectacled girl who resembles Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to such an eerie extent that it can't have been on accident – lives in Amy's building, and the two form a kind of delicate friendship throughout the film.

Here is where the movie most resembles a female version of Stand by Me, and it's also where I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times. It's well-shot, well-scored, and well-acted. In fact, Fathia Youssouf Abdillahi (the actress who portrays Amy) is quite possibly the most talented child actor I've ever seen.

I began to understand that this is a remarkably beautiful film at times.

The portrayal of this group of girls wending their way through the thick tangles of childhood and constantly grasping at what they perceive to be higher concepts of adulthood is somehow both charming and bothersome at the same time. Knowing virtually nothing of the real world of sexuality, they engage in a kind of whimsical speculation as to how sex works that almost comically mirrors the aforementioned Oscar-winning film (and a ton of other coming-of-age movies as well). Some of this is fine. There's a particularly funny-turns-emotional moment when one of the girls, upon finding a used condom lying around in the woods, blows it up like a balloon and begins playing around with it. The other girls – who at least know enough to know that one doesn't touch such things for fear of disease – immediately recoil from her, tell her that she's going to catch AIDS, and so embarrass and frighten her that she begins to cry. The scene is, again, beautifully shot, and I found myself sympathizing with the character as she feels an overwhelming moment of ostracization-through-misadventure. In the following scene, we are treated to a montage of the girls washing her mouth out with soap, and it breaks the tension.

All of that to say that not only does this movie have plenty of redeemable moments that are on the beat film-wise, but also that it will pull you in headlong whether you want it to or not – which is what a good film is supposed to do.

But, alas, there's more. And I'm not so much talking about the risqué dancing that's done throughout the film. Here's why: as if the plot structure of every coming-of-age story didn't lay it out clearly enough for us, kids strive to be adults. The results are often hilarious, sometimes disturbing, but it's their nature. Kids want to be more like adults. And in a world – such as the one depicted in this movie – where children either can't or won't seize on the example of adulthood provided by their own parents, a vacuum is created. And nothing fills the vacuum of responsible parenting better than social media.

For the girls, it is the well from which they draw their inspiration, acceptance and love. "Likes" are the currency of the realm, and if you don't think this is true in your own kids' world today, you need to wake up and smell the Zuckerberg.

Thus, it is no surprise that these young dancing girls are modeling their very existence after what they see in online videos, and regurgitating the same back at the soulless machine. That they would be twerking and gyrating in a manner that falsely suggests they do know a thing or two about sex is normal when you consider that they're dining daily on visual and musical junk food – art perhaps not entirely without merit, but certainly without taste. And if there's one thing about the movie that phone-it-in parents might do well to see, it is perhaps the juxtaposition of budding childhood and the laissez faire morality adhered to by the demigods of popular culture. In short: these girls are just trying to be like the only set of role models afforded to them.

Here's what should (in my opinion, anyway) not be okay, though.

Aside from the moments of dancing, this film is filled with the cinematography of sexuality. When you watch any film in which there is a femme fatale character (or in some cases several of them), the way in which they are shot by the camera is extremely suggestive of overt sexuality. To quote one of my favorite online film critics: "You may not have noticed, but your brain did." Tracking shots over women's bodies, particularly up their backside or across a heaving bosom all decorated in cleavage, are a stock in trade for many filmmakers (and the only one for some of them). It's so common in the making of movies that it's often lampooned as a trope.

I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but... I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

We'll save the discussion about whether or not this is offensive when actresses in their twenties and thirties do it for another time. What I would hope we could all agree on is that you don't – in good conscience – use those same tracking shots over the bodies of a group of 11-year-old girls, even to make a point. And you certainly don't do it over and over and over throughout the course of a movie. The unstated purpose of such shots in a regular film is to give the viewer a taste of the voyeur. You wouldn't be allowed, in polite society, to walk up to a woman and stare at her from inches away, scanning down her body as if you were about to fax her someplace. But with the movie camera, you get a little taste of that. Dopamine rushes to your brain, and you're instantly glad you shelled out the twenty bucks to see the movie.

And while it's theoretically possible that the unstated purpose on behalf of the filmmaker changes when the subject is a little girl, it can't be denied or even overlooked that, for a certain subset of the viewing population, the effect does not. I'm reticent to accuse the woman who made this film of directly catering to the desires of pedophiles – but after having sat through an hour and a half of shot after shot of this very overt technique, I can't completely dismiss the idea, either.

As Amy progresses down the path that her (barely) world-wise friends have chosen, she becomes far more steeped in it, because she has no sense of the unseen boundaries which exist even in a hedonistic postmodern society such as present-day France. She spirals out of control very quickly, trying to outdo her friends in overt displays of sexuality and even violent aggressiveness. If there is a redeeming quality to the message of the movie, it is that we are fairly explicitly told through what we see her go through that this is not the best life for her. That escaping from the oppressive Muslim traditions of her family is a thing she should seek, but that this is not the way to go about it. All throughout her journey, we are subjected to close-up images of her body (and the bodies of the other girls). At one point, Amy's mother and aunt seem to be performing a kind of exorcism on her to drive out the evil rebellious spirits they believe have taken over, and Amy vibrates in the middle of the room on her knees in a paroxysm of movement which is half-dance, half-apparent-demonic possession, and all sex. I don't mean to be graphic here, but she may as well have been doing a full-on sex scene, for all the heavy breathing and gyration and rank passion that's going on. As an adult – and particularly as a parent – it made me literally feel ill to watch.

It's a beautiful final scene... but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

And, if you believe the film's director, that's what you're supposed to feel. She claims that the whole intent of the movie is to get people to feel uncomfortable as they realize the hyper-sexualized nature of children in our modern world, and how it's driven by the nanny state that is social media in our modern era. Part of me wants to applaud the effort – it certainly worked on me. I walked away from my television with a feeling of nausea and a renewal of the commitment in my head toward doing anything and everything I can to make sure that my own children never watch this film. The fact that the movie ends with Amy making a choice to reclaim her childhood – that she walks away both from the more oppressive elements of her Muslim upbringing (insofar as she will be able – we are never told) and from trying to become an adult too soon (insofar as she will be able – we are also never told) and embraces just being an 11-year-old girl – that fact doesn't change what's transpired. It's a beautiful final scene – it really is – but it fails to pull the film from the mire into which it's dipped.

In summary, I can't really put any sort of seal of approval on this film, despite part of me wanting to. I generally subscribe to the idea that showing us a thing is far better than telling us a thing – but there are limits, and I think Cuties crosses them. As much as I want to believe that the director's motives are pure as the driven snow, it's not lost upon me that – as I mentioned before – one of the main characters (with whom we are meant to be sympathetic multiple times throughout the film) is very obviously meant to be the prototypical girl-who-wants-to-be-AOC. This film is at war with its own supposed message – it seeks to convey the horrors of oversexualized youth while laying out on for open display an entire smorgasbord of pedophilic fantasies. The game simply isn't worth the candle.

Osama bin Laden's niece, Noor bin Ladin (Noor's family has always spelled their name differently than her uncle) wrote an open letter to America, praising our country as "a beacon of democracy and hope for all subjugated peoples" across the world, and warning: "America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours."

Noor never stood with or supported her uncle. In fact, she grew up with an American flag proudly displayed in her childhood bedroom. Now a resident of Switzerland, she describes the chaos and destruction she's seen spread across America over the last several months.

"Watching the gratuitous violence, streets burn, buildings and statues being defaced in America over these past months, I am heartbroken to see how an entire generation was successfully brainwashed into hating the very nation that has yielded the most freedom, justice and equality anywhere in the world.

"I am also highly distressed by the blatant erosion at various levels of your most basic individual rights and freedoms as guaranteed by your Bill of Rights, from arbitrary censorship of speech to unlawful, politically motivated abuses of justice," she wrote.

Noor warned America that if we don't stand up, defend our history, and cherish the principles which make our country great, than those who have sought to undermine our country for decades will divide and destroy us from within.

"The truth is that the undoing of America has been decades in the making. The globalists, Deep State, swamp, whichever name you call them, have been hard at work to weaken America's sovereignty and standing as world leader. Intent on erecting a new system of world governance where they would be in total control, they are seeking to undermine the fundamental principle of your country, "a government for the people by the people", replacing it instead with a world order of international institutions ultimately puppeteered by a caste of technocrats, oligarchs and international bankers.

"Though your Constitution stands firmly in their way, it never deterred them. Like a trojan horse, they infiltrated governmental and intelligence agencies, and all realms of society - education, media, entertainment, culture. At their disposal, tools of mass population influence: propaganda, fake news and censorship. By pushing their marxist-socialist progressive agenda for years, they set out to destroy your fundamental values and divide you. They negated God, dissolved the family unit and dissevered us from moral objectivity, effectively leaving a vacuum of degeneracy, cognitive dissonance and absurdity in its wake," she added.

Read the full letter here.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck shared several highlights from Noor's letter as well as her first-ever interview with the New York Post.

"A letter was written to America this week. I want you to listen to the words," said Glenn. "'America, you are at the very edge of the precipice. Please wake up! Take hold! Fight for your country, and be proud of your roots! Uphold your values. Stand for your flag and your anthem. Defend your history. Don't relent in the face of those who seek to re-write it to serve their narrative and justify the destruction of your nation. You have much to cherish and protect for your sake, and ours.' [...] The woman who wrote that, the woman who is an American at heart, who is warning us, is Osama bin Laden's [niece]."

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:

*Note: Glenn mistakenly referred to Noor Bin Ladin as Osama bin Laden's sister. She is his niece.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.