Phiction One: 1996-1998
Kid Analog meets Chap and becomes involved in the Syndicate's activities in New Haven. A choice to become Chap's assistant lands him in other parts of the world, as he endeavors to become one of the greatest Sattelite transmission reciever installers ever.
However, there becomes a problem with his position at the Syndicate. He becomes acutely aware of the world's problems as he is exposed to the world through his travels. As a consequence, he drops out of the syndicate to become just a regular teenager again. Good Luck!
Phiction Two: 1998-2001
January in the cold of winter, Kid returns to his hometown after abandoning his post as Chap's assistant. IN this book, Kid is determined to make his way through as an artist, using methods traditionally used for entertainment purposes as means of which to embed hidden messages towards his agenda of shutting down the Syndicate of Corporate America.
The book ends with the chilling tale of the WTC attacks, and ends up leading to some very scary places, regarding the likes of everyone CIA involved from GW '41 to Cord Meyer.
Phiction Three: 2001-2???
At the beginning of Phiction Three, we realize that Kid Analog has released the original Phiction One to the public. In the onslaught of this realization, the world is beginning to recognize Kid Analog as both an artist, as well as a potential threat to National Security. In the wake of this realization, the news and world begins to become obsessed with his persona, as the tension of war increases. Find out if Kid Analog saves the world from Nuclear Armageddon with art and music as his weapons, or if the Syndicate keeps control and the weaponry is deployed.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Monday, November 9, 2009
Survival.
I would only run for government if I could really change things for everybody. Like the way that Google has changed things. They've provided more public services than the federal government!
Keep in mind that when the government performs a service, it's a government agency. When a company does it for them, it's just one company helping out another. The first group of people financially benefit from the fact that the keeper of the checkbook is really one step away from the decision process. That's one step further than normal businesses, which need to keep a closer look at the bottom line. The other group enjoys the special favors bestowed upon them for cooperation in this complicit system. Democracy as we know it is fading. Fast.
That's why I'm offering you this new product, I call it Google Municipal. It's essentially a way for citizens to keep track of our government. I recently had it explained to me, today, by a young female running for alderwoman of her district. She said that voting online is just not feasible because, she said sympathetically, not all people have access to a computer.
Not a big fan of that explanation. If you'd like an informed society, one that can make sound decisions on voting, then it should be the role of government to ensure that the internet is available to its citizens. AT&T is successful in large part due to their strict policy of punishing people for having trouble with their bills. If we made it their civic duty as an American company to provide free internet access to all those without enough income to afford it (as a basic human right), they might buckle under the threat of legislature and stop punishing the very people that they are making their fortunes from. That alone would not be enough. We'd need to pass the law and make the companies responsible for providing their products to our citizens, or it gets "Nationalized."
Nationalization is the next step beyond Corporate Fascism, which is where we are standing right on the brink of at this very moment. In my opinion, there must need to be a major cataclysmic geopolitical event to break the hold of the corporations on our planet. But it wouldn't take much. In fact, all that needs to occur could happen on paper. It might not even come to the plight of human self-extermination that we call "war," a societal trend of periodic insanity that we've seen as blips on the radar in the Twentieth Century.
Wars, we have not seen yet on our soil. No one could see this coming exactly as it happens. That's why I thought about it, and decided that I would write about it. Here is where I think we're headed. Mark me wrong, if I am wrong. But think about the reasons that I have for believing these things, and you might say that some of them are valid. Hold me accountable? Don't. Because I do not support any of this stuff. I don't want the world to slip into chaos, but let's face it: me, at 31? I can't stop this stuff from happening alone. We're past the point of prevention. In many ways, this becomes more like a warning for the signs that I see down the road that lead to a path of self-destruction.
These are the signs that lead you away from that road. Picture this as a survival guide for more difficult times. An instinct test. That's all it really is. Once you can determine that there's a clear purpose to your life, then you can fulfill that purpose and not question your existence for a moment. It's the question or uncertainness that causes people to lose direction. Our aim and goal must be 100% wholeheartedly dedicated to the task of one thing: survival.
Not everyone has to be on the same side, too, in order for society to get along. Expressing that dissent is equivalent to publicly supporting an incumbent is wiggity-wiggity wack, as well. Though times are tough, we must not lose hope with the government. They'll swing the people back and forth and say "It's the government, you fools!" when they protest the Corporations with OWS. But the instant that they sway their direction at Capital Hill, they puppetize the media into telling everyone, "No, it's the corporations that need to be told what to do!"
If the corporations and the government are owned by the same people, it doesn't matter what one does to the other, because it's always going to be in the same interest, either / or. We can't have a government that is loyal to these mini-governments who essentially draft their own laws and hire people to manage the campaigns for the folks that are going to turn their dreams into wishes, and wishes into laws.
The question is, where do they get their wishes from? Is it some devilish instinctual urge to suppress the rest of humanity, as an egotistical thing? Would this be the same as a man who is proud of himself for the number of slaves he owns? And that's what the Occupy Wall Street movement really is.
These are people who want to use whatever freedom is left in this country to enjoy the use of public space, before they're forced into bondage by corporate prison systems that acquire all of these student loan defaulters because there's just no room in society for them. What if these corporate prison systems existed? They do. They're called FEMA Camps and I believe they exist. This is on account of the reports in the FEMA Budget to refurbish old military bases and turn them into detainment camps for emergency disaster relief.
The trouble with the Occupy! movement is simply that the situation is going to get ugly. How ugly? I don't know. I speculated earlier that they might start incarcerating people with student debt that can't be paid off, in an effort to keep the homeless population down and keep civil unrest at bay. This could go on while in the meantime they wage terrible wars overseas. Since we can't get rid of our upper management, and they see themselves at odds with the rest of the world, it's safe to say that we're on the slow train to the Fourth Reich, bringing this one from overseas to handle the social disease.
How bad can things get? Pretty bad. People keep talking about how the protest movement has opened their eyes to the plain-in-sight plight of the white flight. That's right, and they act as if it's worthy of getting pissed to compare this to the construct of slavery. If you don't think there's still slavery in America, what do you call the prison system? Those people were made to be dangerous by the conditions that created the forces in their lives that caused them to do bad things. I'm not saying that they're not responsible for their actions. Now that they've been spoiled, it's better probably that they're not free in society because crime is the only life they know how to live, and crime is dangerous because it creates innocent victims. That whole Freakanomics thing was about how, basically, the mysterious drop in crime after the mid-nineties was due to abortion becoming legal in the 70's.
All of the solutions that human beings come up with for our "problems" with "overpopulation" (which are really just our problems with mass consumption), is that these people would be willing to let people die rather than to give away their power. And they have the power to do that, if they wish. The question to them is a matter of when. For the rest of us, we can obey the delusion and think that we can "take back government" as a reaction to all the mistakes that have been made. But that's not for me. I'm too busy trying to determine when they think it's the right time to enact their plan.
Keep in mind that when the government performs a service, it's a government agency. When a company does it for them, it's just one company helping out another. The first group of people financially benefit from the fact that the keeper of the checkbook is really one step away from the decision process. That's one step further than normal businesses, which need to keep a closer look at the bottom line. The other group enjoys the special favors bestowed upon them for cooperation in this complicit system. Democracy as we know it is fading. Fast.
That's why I'm offering you this new product, I call it Google Municipal. It's essentially a way for citizens to keep track of our government. I recently had it explained to me, today, by a young female running for alderwoman of her district. She said that voting online is just not feasible because, she said sympathetically, not all people have access to a computer.
Not a big fan of that explanation. If you'd like an informed society, one that can make sound decisions on voting, then it should be the role of government to ensure that the internet is available to its citizens. AT&T is successful in large part due to their strict policy of punishing people for having trouble with their bills. If we made it their civic duty as an American company to provide free internet access to all those without enough income to afford it (as a basic human right), they might buckle under the threat of legislature and stop punishing the very people that they are making their fortunes from. That alone would not be enough. We'd need to pass the law and make the companies responsible for providing their products to our citizens, or it gets "Nationalized."
Nationalization is the next step beyond Corporate Fascism, which is where we are standing right on the brink of at this very moment. In my opinion, there must need to be a major cataclysmic geopolitical event to break the hold of the corporations on our planet. But it wouldn't take much. In fact, all that needs to occur could happen on paper. It might not even come to the plight of human self-extermination that we call "war," a societal trend of periodic insanity that we've seen as blips on the radar in the Twentieth Century.
Wars, we have not seen yet on our soil. No one could see this coming exactly as it happens. That's why I thought about it, and decided that I would write about it. Here is where I think we're headed. Mark me wrong, if I am wrong. But think about the reasons that I have for believing these things, and you might say that some of them are valid. Hold me accountable? Don't. Because I do not support any of this stuff. I don't want the world to slip into chaos, but let's face it: me, at 31? I can't stop this stuff from happening alone. We're past the point of prevention. In many ways, this becomes more like a warning for the signs that I see down the road that lead to a path of self-destruction.
These are the signs that lead you away from that road. Picture this as a survival guide for more difficult times. An instinct test. That's all it really is. Once you can determine that there's a clear purpose to your life, then you can fulfill that purpose and not question your existence for a moment. It's the question or uncertainness that causes people to lose direction. Our aim and goal must be 100% wholeheartedly dedicated to the task of one thing: survival.
Not everyone has to be on the same side, too, in order for society to get along. Expressing that dissent is equivalent to publicly supporting an incumbent is wiggity-wiggity wack, as well. Though times are tough, we must not lose hope with the government. They'll swing the people back and forth and say "It's the government, you fools!" when they protest the Corporations with OWS. But the instant that they sway their direction at Capital Hill, they puppetize the media into telling everyone, "No, it's the corporations that need to be told what to do!"
If the corporations and the government are owned by the same people, it doesn't matter what one does to the other, because it's always going to be in the same interest, either / or. We can't have a government that is loyal to these mini-governments who essentially draft their own laws and hire people to manage the campaigns for the folks that are going to turn their dreams into wishes, and wishes into laws.
The question is, where do they get their wishes from? Is it some devilish instinctual urge to suppress the rest of humanity, as an egotistical thing? Would this be the same as a man who is proud of himself for the number of slaves he owns? And that's what the Occupy Wall Street movement really is.
These are people who want to use whatever freedom is left in this country to enjoy the use of public space, before they're forced into bondage by corporate prison systems that acquire all of these student loan defaulters because there's just no room in society for them. What if these corporate prison systems existed? They do. They're called FEMA Camps and I believe they exist. This is on account of the reports in the FEMA Budget to refurbish old military bases and turn them into detainment camps for emergency disaster relief.
The trouble with the Occupy! movement is simply that the situation is going to get ugly. How ugly? I don't know. I speculated earlier that they might start incarcerating people with student debt that can't be paid off, in an effort to keep the homeless population down and keep civil unrest at bay. This could go on while in the meantime they wage terrible wars overseas. Since we can't get rid of our upper management, and they see themselves at odds with the rest of the world, it's safe to say that we're on the slow train to the Fourth Reich, bringing this one from overseas to handle the social disease.
How bad can things get? Pretty bad. People keep talking about how the protest movement has opened their eyes to the plain-in-sight plight of the white flight. That's right, and they act as if it's worthy of getting pissed to compare this to the construct of slavery. If you don't think there's still slavery in America, what do you call the prison system? Those people were made to be dangerous by the conditions that created the forces in their lives that caused them to do bad things. I'm not saying that they're not responsible for their actions. Now that they've been spoiled, it's better probably that they're not free in society because crime is the only life they know how to live, and crime is dangerous because it creates innocent victims. That whole Freakanomics thing was about how, basically, the mysterious drop in crime after the mid-nineties was due to abortion becoming legal in the 70's.
All of the solutions that human beings come up with for our "problems" with "overpopulation" (which are really just our problems with mass consumption), is that these people would be willing to let people die rather than to give away their power. And they have the power to do that, if they wish. The question to them is a matter of when. For the rest of us, we can obey the delusion and think that we can "take back government" as a reaction to all the mistakes that have been made. But that's not for me. I'm too busy trying to determine when they think it's the right time to enact their plan.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Zeitgeist *****
RATING: ****
Broken into 3 sections (past, present, and future), the film seeks to explain not the force, but signs of the appearance of its power as it has caused some rather dubious (and difficult to explain) occurances throughout history.
One star short of a perfect rating, Zeitgeist fails to explain that the "people" who are on a mission to control everything are being guided by their own evil spiritual force, caused by something we can't quite place our finger on. Is it greed? gluttony? An insatiable urge to submit the world to their will? Or something else...
Broken into 3 sections (past, present, and future), the film seeks to explain not the force, but signs of the appearance of its power as it has caused some rather dubious (and difficult to explain) occurances throughout history.
One star short of a perfect rating, Zeitgeist fails to explain that the "people" who are on a mission to control everything are being guided by their own evil spiritual force, caused by something we can't quite place our finger on. Is it greed? gluttony? An insatiable urge to submit the world to their will? Or something else...
Friday, November 23, 2007
Loose Change ****
Rating: *****
This is an excellent example of an independent investigation of 9-11. This is not an amateur independent investigation. The opinions presented are of experts, the testimonies are from first-hand witnesses, and the official explanations are straight from the people who were the officials. The voices of protest are the loudest from those who were actually there, and the conflicting reports are from the uninformed news media. One of the more remarkable things about it would be the BBC reporter announcing the unexpected collapse of building seven, while 7 is clearly visible behind her.
Of course, the difficult part about watching something like this is handling all of the facts, and how poorly they're dismissed by members of authority. It's also suspicious, the way that the authority is passed along to people like Henry Kissinger, who as the film points out, is more known for his ability of keeping secrets from the American public than informing them (as head of the 9/11 commission). The eyewitness accounts are unbearably similar, and resonate in frequency as each one points out the same blatant facts. The only thing confusing about the message is what exactly this means.
I'm also not sure if it's pointed out, but a Bush family member was in charge of security in the twin towers just before this event happened. There were also talks about how there was alot of "DataCom" work going on in the buildings, and that parts of it had been shut off. That's all anecdotal evidence, none of which is in this film. Only factual evidence.
This is an excellent example of an independent investigation of 9-11. This is not an amateur independent investigation. The opinions presented are of experts, the testimonies are from first-hand witnesses, and the official explanations are straight from the people who were the officials. The voices of protest are the loudest from those who were actually there, and the conflicting reports are from the uninformed news media. One of the more remarkable things about it would be the BBC reporter announcing the unexpected collapse of building seven, while 7 is clearly visible behind her.
Of course, the difficult part about watching something like this is handling all of the facts, and how poorly they're dismissed by members of authority. It's also suspicious, the way that the authority is passed along to people like Henry Kissinger, who as the film points out, is more known for his ability of keeping secrets from the American public than informing them (as head of the 9/11 commission). The eyewitness accounts are unbearably similar, and resonate in frequency as each one points out the same blatant facts. The only thing confusing about the message is what exactly this means.
I'm also not sure if it's pointed out, but a Bush family member was in charge of security in the twin towers just before this event happened. There were also talks about how there was alot of "DataCom" work going on in the buildings, and that parts of it had been shut off. That's all anecdotal evidence, none of which is in this film. Only factual evidence.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Kymatica ***
This film explores the idea that the Planet is a conscious being, and shapes the concept behind what might be considered a new form of Global Religion, stemming that the new age will reveal new boundaries between human beings. While Global Government seeks to extend its aim at controlling economies to enslave the masses, Global Religion seeks to free people from it by fighting the ultimate passive battle.
JFK 2: The Bush Connection ****
Rating: ***
Synopsis
CIA/Skull and Bones piloted the invasion of Cuba in 1959 with oil interests in mind. Bay of Pigs invasion failed, obtained international attention. According to the theory, JFK did not have any knowledge of the plans for the invasion. Feeling that the CIA was operating on its own jurisdiction, he sent the FBI out to shut down the "Anti-Castro Cuban" bases being run by the FBI. Hoover sent Oswald, a former CIA agent with ties to being cast as a socialist, to infiltrate the bases. After shutting down the New Orleans base, Oswald is sent to Dallas. The president is assassinated with the cooperation of the CIA and the secret service under top level CIA directives. Oswald is framed. Ruby (Jack Rubenstein, a former Nixon staffer in his California office) is sent to silence Oswald, and then lives in silence until he dies of lung cancer in jail.
Summary
This work is one of the most comprehensive views on these events. While some of it goes above and beyond reason, most of it offers facts as a legitimate basis for hypotheses, and provides some decent character sketches and motivating forces behind historical events. Most interesting are the connections between the person charged with perpetrating Watergate (E. Howard Hunt), Nixon, and George Bush Sr. Also, it is interesting that Nixon was in Dallas on that day, and gave two different stories about where he was when he found out about the assassination. It's remarkable because the two stories were actually published, and that's how we know of his selective recollection. That's particularly odd, because anyone born no later than 1950 remembers exactly where they were when they found out, and who told them. This is a remarkable fact and you can try it on old people. It still works.
Synopsis
CIA/Skull and Bones piloted the invasion of Cuba in 1959 with oil interests in mind. Bay of Pigs invasion failed, obtained international attention. According to the theory, JFK did not have any knowledge of the plans for the invasion. Feeling that the CIA was operating on its own jurisdiction, he sent the FBI out to shut down the "Anti-Castro Cuban" bases being run by the FBI. Hoover sent Oswald, a former CIA agent with ties to being cast as a socialist, to infiltrate the bases. After shutting down the New Orleans base, Oswald is sent to Dallas. The president is assassinated with the cooperation of the CIA and the secret service under top level CIA directives. Oswald is framed. Ruby (Jack Rubenstein, a former Nixon staffer in his California office) is sent to silence Oswald, and then lives in silence until he dies of lung cancer in jail.
Summary
This work is one of the most comprehensive views on these events. While some of it goes above and beyond reason, most of it offers facts as a legitimate basis for hypotheses, and provides some decent character sketches and motivating forces behind historical events. Most interesting are the connections between the person charged with perpetrating Watergate (E. Howard Hunt), Nixon, and George Bush Sr. Also, it is interesting that Nixon was in Dallas on that day, and gave two different stories about where he was when he found out about the assassination. It's remarkable because the two stories were actually published, and that's how we know of his selective recollection. That's particularly odd, because anyone born no later than 1950 remembers exactly where they were when they found out, and who told them. This is a remarkable fact and you can try it on old people. It still works.
Additional Reading
Mary Pinchot
E Howard Hunt
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Money As Debt ****
Rating: ****
Summary:
Contains topics touched upon in the last section of Zeitgeist. It follows the transgression or history of money as it actually unfolded. Points out at the very beginning that most of us have never been briefed on how banking really works. Everything about this documentary, probably more so than many of the other movies reviewed, is on point and can't really be argued with in terms of accuracy, factualness, or relevance.
Just like many of the other films here reviewed on Phiction, this film is intended to portray the world as it really works, which is not the way that it's generally assumed to work. And like the others, it may try to imply why things work this way. The answer is simple: the people in power want to keep control into the hands of as few people as possible. The entire system is set up that way, and this particular film makes that point in a clear, concise way.
The animations seem amateur, but the purpose is to give the narrative some visualization. Taken alone, without the images and only the voice, it would make a perfectly good radio show.
Summary:
Contains topics touched upon in the last section of Zeitgeist. It follows the transgression or history of money as it actually unfolded. Points out at the very beginning that most of us have never been briefed on how banking really works. Everything about this documentary, probably more so than many of the other movies reviewed, is on point and can't really be argued with in terms of accuracy, factualness, or relevance.
Just like many of the other films here reviewed on Phiction, this film is intended to portray the world as it really works, which is not the way that it's generally assumed to work. And like the others, it may try to imply why things work this way. The answer is simple: the people in power want to keep control into the hands of as few people as possible. The entire system is set up that way, and this particular film makes that point in a clear, concise way.
The animations seem amateur, but the purpose is to give the narrative some visualization. Taken alone, without the images and only the voice, it would make a perfectly good radio show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)