Is Glenn Greenwald willingly setting the stage for the passage of the highly unpopular CISPA by helping to create this new “crisis” at this critical time? Is “the conversation” everyone is talking about us having, actually going to center around the passage of “Big Brother’s Friend” CISPA? I believe it is…

“The primary problem (with CISPA), according to Meeks, is that it tries to kill a flea with a baseball bat: Any alleged security the bill offers against potential hackers “comes at the expense of unfettered government access to our personal information, which is then likely to be sucked into the secretive black hole of the spying complex known as the National Security Agency.” Bob Adlemann, April 23, 2012

800 companies spent $68 million dollars lobbying congress to pass CISPA this past year. The first hurdle was the House of Representatives on April 18th of 2013. Glenn Greenwald was contacted on May 1st by Edward Snowden. Suddenly the talk is about “having the conversation” about privacy and security, the EXACT conversation that would be required in order to push something like CISPA into becoming a law.

That is, after the right crisis is created and the MSM hype it enough.

You think that’s a coincidence? That all of this is happening in a non-election year right before the bill is to go to the senate and eventually to Obama for him to sign? I don’t think so.

As many of you know, my ongoing research into the Edward Snowden psyop has been pretty extensive. As soon as the story broke, I started with one theory as to why they would stage this leak which naturally evolved into another as I learned more and more information became available.

But since the beginning, I have understood that this was and is a staged operation.

I looked at the timing of the leak along with various inconsistencies in Edward’s story and then at how the story itself was being crafted by the media. But I didn’t see that one thing that tied it all together, the one thing that will eventually bring the those on the left and the right of the artificial divide back together as per the “fix” to the crisis.

Today I found it.

As is usually the case with propaganda, though you often can determine immediately that something is propaganda, you can’t always see the forest for the trees until you put a little time and space between the event and your vantage point.

I’ve been saying for a week now that the point of this psyop was stated by the ops themselves along with President Obama when they say we have to have “the discussion” about where we go from here to manage this problem between “100% security and 100% privacy“

Obama has said several times already that private sector companies would be involved in the solution.

Yes, they have a plan in mind to fix the problem with the current spying program and yes, the timing of it all is very curious.

Jon Rappoport wrote an article yesterday in which he concludes that the Edward Snowden leak was planned, but according to him, it was planned by the CIA as the result of some kind of Spy vs Spy game between the NSA and the CIA.

He makes a number of good arguments in support of his case, the same ones many of us have been making which go to establishing the fact that Edward Snowden isn’t actually what he appears to be.

Rappoport suggests, based on what Snowden actually says, that it appears as if he’s ridiculing the process and the structure of the NSA more than the legality of the process. In other words, if you take out the ability for one high school flunkie to be able to access the president’s recorded phone calls and everyone else’s on a whim, it might not be that bad.

Rappoport concluded the only reason to make the NSA look bad in this regard must have something to do with Snowden’s history with the CIA. He figures it’s payback from the CIA for the NSA making them look bad after 9/11 and trying to overreach in the globalism spying game. Basically a turf war.

Though his evaluation of Snowden’s statements is right on the money, Rappoport misses the bigger picture.

In fact, his theory almost sounds like a reworking of the old propaganda that we all heard right after 9/11… that the reason all those “terrorists” slipped through the cracks was because of a lack of communication or competition between intelligence agencies. A turf war, in short.

You will recall, it was that particular bit of blanket propaganda that got us the Department of Homeland Security.

Except for his conclusion, I concur with much of what Rappoport says in his well documented article.

However, the conclusion is a big part of it all and in fact, Mr. Rappoport’s conclusion bolsters what I believe to be the real reason for this little sideshow stage play of a leak.

The idea that what we have is a turf-war between agencies plays right into the hands of those who I think wrote it in the first place. Might explain why Mr. Rappoport’s article is featured on Di$info’s site right now.

Let’s look at how this crisis is being addressed.

There are many people out there starting to question the legitimacy of the Edward Snowden story. Even people who supported him right off the bat with no questions at all are starting to back away a bit, one such writer has even said he doesn’t care at all about Snowden, all he cares about is the information he leaked and what we do about it now.

The “what we do about it” theme is everywhere. No doubt what we do is something to think about.

Here’s what we do… it’s illegal and against our constitutional rights to allow the spying agencies access to our personal data as a broad sweeping generality AND it’s certainly against our constitutional rights to have them recording everything we say for future use or blackmail. So how about this: we boycott the companies involved until it stops? How about we take the batteries out of our phones and our vehicle mapping computers, use cash for our purchases where ever possible and we figure out an online access provider who will stand with the constitution and make them into a trillion dollar company? Hows that sound?

If you don’t think that will change the game plan for the big telecoms you don’t know what share-holders can do til you drop the value of their stock holdings by 30% in a week. You would be surprised what they can do once that happens.

Notice none of the “alternative” sites are promoting or even talking about that because the focus has been on the NSA’s government program (Big Guberment?) and not the companies themselves like it was during the FISA retroactive immunity scandal back in 2008.

Notice, everyone out there feigning some big plan to end this process are talking about one form of a “new Church Committee” or another.

That’s the “big plan”… congress fixes it after another 9/11 Commission Report or Warren Commission Report. Our bought and paid for congress, that is. Our congress that currently enjoys about an 8% approval rating. Our congress (the House of Representatives) which just recently passed the new CISPA bill. Our congress that has been paid $68 million dollars by the corporation who want CISPA.

That’s the big plan? Get congress to investigate and fix it? With what? CISPA?

Let’s look at what is currently going on. The other day, the NSA’s director, Gen. Keith Alexander, spoke to the members of the House Intelligence Committee (many of the same people who would naturally be involved in “a new Church Committee” hearing on intelligence gathering procedures and limits.

“The National Security Agency is reviewing whether to stop collecting a vast stockpile of records of Americans’ telephone calls — the most controversial component of its surveillance programs— by allowing telecommunications companies to retain the data until U.S. intelligence officials have a specific reason to review it for possible connections to terror plots, U.S. officials said Tuesday. The NSA’s director, Gen. Keith Alexander, disclosed the review during a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, saying the agency and the FBI are jointly re-examining “how we actually do this program.” Asked by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., if the records of phone calls – known as metadata — could be left in the hands of telecommunications firms and then reviewed only when there is a suspicion “of a foreign terrorist connection,” Alexander replied: “I do think that that’s something that we’ve agreed to look at and that we’ll do. It’s just going to take some time. We want to do it right.” NBC News

So what is the procedure here? The proposed process would involve the big telecoms themselves recording everything you say and do and handing it over to the various agencies when they request it or handing it over to other companies when they buy it. Basically, what we are talking about is allowing the telecommunications companies to turn your private information into a marketable commodity.

If you look back at Snowden’s statements, they play right into this.

His accusation was that the NSA was so slack, anyone could grab anything they wanted, a CEO’s private communications about business matters or Hillary Clinton’s hairdresser gossiping about something Hillary told her the day before. That accusation when you think about it is less a condemnation of the COLLECTION of material and more about HOW and WHO had ready access to it.

You will also notice a growing meme in the MSM discussion about all of this: it’s less about “protecting us from the terrorists” and more about how access to this illegally recorded information is handled.

For more specifics on Snowden’s real message with his leak, I recommend Rappoport’s article.

Well, how does that lead to CISPA?

Let’s start with the obvious… the timing.

April 15th, 2013… right before this whole thing kicked off and Glenn Greenwald was contacted by Edward Snowden, 200 senior IBM executives hit D.C. like a plague of locusts to push them to pass the new CISPA bill.

“The message we’re going to give [lawmakers] is going to be a very simple, clear message: support the passage of CISPA,” he later added. The Hill

IBM is not the only megacorp pressing congress to pass this bill. In fact, when you start looking at the proponents of it, you will find SEVERAL of the companies directly linked to the Edward Snowden psyop.

“CISPA had garnered favor from corporations and lobbying groups such as Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, IBM, Apple Inc. , Intel, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon and the United States Chamber of Commerce, which look on it as a simple and effective means of sharing important cyber threat information with the government. Google has not taken a public position on the bill but has shown previous support for it…” List of companies who have sent letters of support for CISPA since 2012

You will also find major players like the Business Roundtable in support of CISPA as well as:

• The Financial Services Roundtable
• Lockheed Martin
• Boeing
• Cyber, Space and Intelligence Association
• Internet Security Alliance

In all, with the aligned companies that make up the various Roundtables and alliances, there are 800 corporations that support the passage of CISPA.

800 corporations, Business Roundtable, Financial Roundtable, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, the Military Industrial Complex in general all standing for something the general public is strongly against.

Back in Aug of 2012, after CISPA and SOPA failed to garner enough support to become the law of the land, long after PIPA also failed, the groundwork was already being laid for the House vote on CISPA scheduled for April 23rd of this year. It passed the House last year but public outcry against it was such

That brings me back to the quote I teased you with at the opening of this article from Bob Adelmann in an article he wrote in 2012 titled “CISPA is Big Brother’s Friend“

The primary problem, according to Meeks, is that it tries to kill a flea with a baseball bat: Any alleged security the bill offers against potential hackers “comes at the expense of unfettered government access to our personal information, which is then likely to be sucked into the secretive black hole of the spying complex known as the National Security Agency.” Despite some window dressing by Mssrs. Rogers and Ruppersberger, the bill still has major problems. First it has “an overly broad, almost unlimited definition of the information [that] can be shared [by private Internet companies] with government agencies.” It overrides existing federal or state privacy laws with its language that says information between private and public agencies is shared “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” In addition, the bill would create a “backdoor wiretap program” because the information being shared isn’t limited specifically to issues of cybersecurity but could be used for any other purpose as well. The language is unclear about what would trigger a CISPA investigation: “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” a network. Would that apply to someone innocently downloading a large file — a movie, perhaps — that is perceived, under the bill, to be an “effort to degrade, disrupt or destroy” a network? Bob Adelmann, April 2012

This is basically the wet dream of the fascist state which is why 800 corporations support it and spent $68 million dollars last year lobbying congress to push it through this year.

With CISPA they can do anything with the data, your personal data; they can trade it, sell it, use it for marketing, make derivatives off it for all I know which is probably one reason the Financial Services Roundtable and all their globalist banking members want it so bad.

But back in 2012 when they were trying to get it pushed through, way too many people across the net were screaming bloody murder about it:

• “CISPA Is The New SOPA: Help Kill It”
• “Draconian cyber security bill could lead to Internet surveillance and censorship”
• “Voices of Opposition Against CISPA”
• “CISPA is the new SOPA”
• “An Open Letter From Security Experts, Academics and Engineers to the U.S. Congress: Stop Bad Cybersecurity Bills”

And that’s just a very small sampling of the general mood of the nation about this bill. Remember, April 2012 was right before a major election. Nobody wanted to vote for the extremely unpopular “draconian CISPA” bill at that time. It was political suicide.

But here we are today, 2 years from even a mid-term election, and suddenly we are being told by everyone we have to “have the conversation” about how to fix this spying program crisis.

A sudden, blind rush to fix the problem, the problem thrust into the forefront of our public discourse by the NSA and various MSM corporations which by and large support the passage of CISPA.

The head of the NSA, the agency which I think actually ran the Edward Snowden psyop, just came out and said we have to get the private sector companies to store this data and share it with the government agencies and others as needed. That’s CISPA folks.

Keep in mind that the Federal Government stepped-up their prosecution of Aaron Schwartz, the leading defender of online privacy rights and open access to educational materials, on Sept. 12th 2012. They wanted him silenced and out of the way when the new CISPA was being ramrodded through congress since he was so instrumental in killing it the first time as well as SOPA.

Schwartz was a consummate activist and he certainly didn’t run off to Hong Kong and hide at the CIA compound where Snowden probably is today.

He vowed to fight the 9 new felony charges they leveled at him in court and eventually they offered him a plea deal with only 60 days in jail but he refused to cut a deal and looked forward to beating them once and for all in public on this very critical issue.

On the evening of January 11, 2013, Swartz was found dead in his Crown Heights, Brooklyn apartment by his partner.[74][86][87] A spokeswoman for New York’s Medical Examiner reported that he had hanged himself.[86][87][88][89] No suicide note was found.[90]

Like I said about the Benghazi psyop and the 45 major corporations who got together in April of last year to decide how they are going to chop up the continent of Africa, when these major companies get together and come up with an agenda, no one’s safe, everything is “on the table” from staging the suicide of an effective and popular activist to killing a few State Department employees. The endgame represents far too much profit for these companies. No one is bigger than that.

That’s what happens in a fascist state. That’s why we don’t want to live in one. But we do.

The ground work has been done. The pieces of the narrative are all set.

We now have what was missing prior to last year’s effort to pass CISPA and SOPA… a crisis… a crisis which is being blasted across the MSM (the same MSM which to a company, supports CISPA) and the alternative sites across the board (most of those sites are supported by various foundations, all of which support CISPA)

The alternative view is that it’s infighting among the spy agencies.

Infighting and lack of communication between these same agencies prior to 9/11 supposedly required the creation of the Homeland Security Act.

We know that was bullshit.

The same story looks like it is going to be used to justify yet another congressional act, one that is and was highly unpopular.

NSA’s director, Gen. Keith Alexander says they’ve been “working” on this plan. Yes, they have.

The main activist thorn in their side is out of the way. The narrative of the out of control spying agency is in place. Even the liberals like Greenwald are out in the forefront drumming up outrage over the situation as it is, calling for some kind of congressional action.

And the whole time, this action has been sitting there waiting for just the right crisis environment to slip through the cracks in our sanity to become the law of the land.

The Shock Opera of the Snowden psyop has a final chapter written and directed by 800 major corporations.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa) passed by a 288-127 vote, receiving support from 92 Democrats. It will move to the Senate and then to the president’s desk.

The bill allows private businesses to share customers’ personal information with any government entity, including the National Security Agency. Reintroduced in February after failing to pass Congress last year, the bill would afford legal protection to the government and businesses to share data with each other on cyber threats. Its co-author, Mike Rogers, the intelligence committee chairman and a Republican from Michigan, argues that cyberattacks and espionage, particularly from China, where a number of high profile attacks have originated recently, are a number one threat to US economic security. “We have a constitutional obligation to defend this nation,” said Rogers, on the House floor. “This is the answer to empower cyber information sharing to protect this nation, to allow those companies to protect themselves and move on to economic prosperity. If you want to take a shot across China’s bow, this is the answer.” Guardian April 18th 2013

Taking a shot across China’s bow?…. and where did Snowden go?

He went to China.

Schwartz was finally found dead with no suicide note in mid January, the new CISPA bill hit congress less than a month afterward.

It’s kinda hard to miss the thru-line at this point, wouldn’t you say?

When 800 corporations want something in a non-election year and they pay $68 million to congress to get it passed, there are literally no limits to what they and their intelligence agencies wont do to see it done.

That’s the missing piece of the Edward Snowden psyop. The motive. CISPA. And it’s just as plain as the nose on your face.

Hey. Akira’s a pretty good movie. Kind of changed the history of anime. Gonna talk about it now.

A few years ago, when the first fire emblem games started coming out in the US a lot of people were telling me to try them out. They said things like, if you love RPG’s, you will love turn based strategy RPG’s. So, I rented the Gameboy Advanced version and, it did not click with me. It was not the perma-death I just would get bored. The fights take a long, long time and being thrown into the deep end with large units, you spend half an hour fighting a battle and then loose and have to start all the way at the beginning of the battle. I tried other games in the genre thinking I was just missing something. Like Phantom Brave or early Sega Shinning Force games for the Genesis, but it just never clicked with me. That was until I played Front Mission III. What made the difference for me? Why did it click when all the other games simply did not?

First, I really liked the story, at least one of them, let me explain. Set in an alternate future, not that different from our own you play as Kazuki on a mission to rescue his adopted sister or her real sister and save the world from the threat of Midas. Midas is the code name for a nuclear style weapon with the capability to level cities without the damaging fallout radiation. You team up with seven other characters to fight genetically enhanced super soldiers and world powers from all over the world to accomplish your personal and far-reaching mission. The story can play out in two ways depending on a seemingly ordinary decision that you are presented with in the opening minutes of the game. In fact, for a long time, I did not even know there were two campaigns as I always made the same choice in the narrative. Allies in one campaign become enemies in the other and vice versa. That said in neither campaign do you play “the bad guy” or the “good guy.” Kazuki is a good person and desires to do the right thing, but his potential allies are morally grey characters that are positively influenced by him as the story progresses. The two campaigns act as a, what might have been, to each other and are different narratively and even influence the battles and locations where you fight. That said I definitely prefer one campaign to the other, but it is cool that you have some options.

The main method of warfare consists of piloting Wanzers, large powerful mechs that you take control of, four at time, in battle against the many enemies you will face. It is epic stuff with all the combat, espionage and intrigue to make a Hollywood blockbuster. It is too bad that it all told through text boxes and the few cut scenes it has have not aged well. Especially the ones using the in-game engine where the humans look like they were cut from cardboard pieces. In short, the story is good however not terribly well told. Some of this is down to the PlayStation hardware, but the rest, well I will get back to that. I really did enjoy the story; I just wished more emphasis had been placed on its presentation.

Cut scenes and character models aside the game look pretty good even by today’s standards. It may lack in the color department, but it portrays a realistic gritty world marred by war. The Wanzers look great, and it is clear they received most of the budget for 3D models and 2D sprites. Both of these are presented together for wide battlefield shots and closer combat views. The transition between these two modes holds up to this day and is impressive given hardware limitations. However, background texture mapping suffers from the texture warping common on the hardware. Music fits the game though sitting here writing I cannot recall any of it, though I never felt removed from the experience by it. As stated, most of the story is told through text boxes. The dialogue is pretty wordy and none of it is voiced, but the character portraits are good and the backgrounds for these scenes are rarely reused unless it is appropriate to do so, as in we are in the same place as before. Easily the most impressive presentation piece is the internet feature. Throughout the game you will have access to a fictional internet service with email, web addresses, shopping and more. This is expanded through exploring and interacting with the few NPC’s, main characters and even in battle. It is fun to poke around in and is a unique experience.

Typical to the genre, all of this game is menus. In a town? Menu. In a battle? Menu. Shopping? Menu. So, the skill gap for the game is low, precision platform skills are not needed. That is not to say that the game has no challenge or that it is easy. In a battle you can control four Wanzers. Rarely you may have support, but you cannot control their actions, always you will have enemies and from the start you will almost always be outnumbered and outgunned. The challenge comes with maximizing your damage dealt while minimizing damage taken and meeting your objectives. Usually, the objectives are always “destroy all enemies,” but occasionally you will have others as well. Best of all though you can fight with all your strength without fear of consequence. Playing Shinning Force, I was always afraid to commit the main character to battle because if he dies game over and in Fire Emblem, with the threat of perma-death that becomes true of every character. So, you hold back your best characters, which means they don’t level, and they become useless. In Front Mission there is no experience just money which you use to upgrade equipment. You can earn abilities for characters through ability points earned in battle, but it is not the main focus. But best of all if the main character goes down, you can keep fighting and he will be back for the next battle. The challenge is just not losing all Wanzers, which is plenty because of how often you are outnumbered. Many times, I wished I could field all my characters, having seven total, but the challenge of the game is in the four character limit. So, things are balanced and if you do not mind a lot of menus then the control is very applicable to the game play style. This also makes the game more manageable. Battles are still long but with so many moving elements like damaged parts needing to be repaired I found the combat more engaging.

The only level design to speak of is the battle maps. These are varied and add challenges through terrain and cover. Say your character is getting pummeled seeking cover behind objects can affect the enemies aim and give you some time to recover and heal. Range is a factor to every action thanks to varied enemy types and range is easily affected by the unique environments and obstacles. A few maps can be revisited in the simulator to earn more money and try out new skills or weapons. I wish there were more simulated maps, or even if all of them could be unlocked, but this does not seem to be the case. In brief I never encountered a map where I thought that it was unfair or uninteresting.

I have finally found a strategy game that I can get into. The combat feels snappy and rewarding and the battles are, for me, fun. The story is full of intrigue despite its limited presentation. I find myself going back to replay it fairly often. I picked up part one on the DS and part 4 for the PS2 and I am looking forward to trying both of them. Maybe all the formula needed for me was giant fighting robots. I would absolutely love a modern remake of three though it will probably never happen. I fully recommend the game.

In Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, director Sam Raimi (Army of Darkness) takes a script by Michael Waldron (Loki) and creates an eye-popping masterpiece that combines horror and fantasy. Though the story suffers a bit from underdeveloped characters, the fantastic musical score and various visual components easily overcome its shortcoming.

Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) has nightmares of a horrific version of himself. Despite this, he tries to go about his daily life and attend the wedding of Dr. Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams). The nightmares come to partial reality after the ceremony when America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), the girl from his visions, becomes a stark reality in his universe. Now, Strange must combine his talents with those of sorcerer supreme Wong (Benedict Wong), and also the witchcraft of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), to prevent the destruction of the multiverse itself. But the first step is finding out who wants to steal America’s hidden talent and why. The answer is as shocking as the intent.

Waldron has created a skillfully written, multi-layered story that is neither short on horror nor action. But he has done so at the expense of the individual characters. The focus, of course, is on Strange, and Cumberbatch continues to improve his game as the character. But despite introducing other heroes old and new, as well as the two female leads so prominently displayed on the poster, the characters are not fully developed; and so, the spotlight remains on Strange. It is also notable that anyone who hasn’t seen the limited series WandaVision will be lost with the motivations of the Scarlet Witch. Nonetheless, this issue does not entirely take away from a thrilling storyline. Also, knowing Raimi’s history as a director, chances are there wasn’t any issue until the studio called for 35 minutes of cuts. Another reason, perhaps, is that the studio didn’t want to take too much focus away from the lead character and shine it on those that will be more developed later.

The real co-stars of the show are the amazing visual effects and incredible score. In the past, there have been issues with CGI not looking organic. This is never the case here, whether there is a horror from another dimension on the screen or the characters are hurtling through space. Even by Marvel standards, this is a triumph. Every bit of music throughout, whether beautiful or discordant, fits perfectly with the action, especially one particular battle scene. The score demonstrates that Danny Elfman is still a master of writing for the strange and unusual, and, in fact, this is one of his best.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is a visual feast with a great menu but small portions in the character-development course. The story is multi-faceted and visually stimulating, and every other aspect of the film more than overshadows any issue.

Theater, war reenactments, Star Trek conventions, cosplay, video games, and several other aspects of society—new and old—feature adults consciously participating in a reality with an entirely different context than the accepted version: an imaginary reality. Taking the idea and running with it, Poul Anderson’s 1981 novella The Saturn Game asks readers to not only suspend their reality to participate in the story, but to try to understand the realities the characters themselves are participating in. The story perhaps capable of being improved in the hands of another writer, Anderson nevertheless tells a tale with a conclusion relevant to humanity on our side of the looking glass.

Opening on a bizarrely mythic note wherein characters speak to one another of epic matters in archaic English, the story quickly settles in to describe a group of explorers arriving at Saturn’s moon, Iapetus. The five member crew, having spent the preceding months in transit, prepare to land and explore the iced-over rock which floats against the backdrop of the massive ringed planet. The crew who land on the surface are participating in a game in which they agree to improvise upon unfolds in reality. The only one who is not playing stays behind to watch over the lander while the remainder head off to explore the icy crags. A small catastrophe occurring after the explorers mount an ice ridge, it quickly proves potentially deadly. Their game interfering with the rescue, whether or not they will get back to the lander safely becomes a matter of reality.

The basic story of The Saturn Game is, in fact, quite simple: a planetary rescue. Anderson adds depth by interweaving story segments from the characters’ imagined perspectives on reality. Filled with archaic syntax and starring characterizations mythic in stature and tone, these segments appear and reappear like a sine curve. Coinciding with the end of the story, the truth they come to is the heart of the story. Not wanting to spoil matters, I will simply say that what seems odd, does converge to give the preceding juxtaposed pieces of text harmony and meaning.

The only real complaint about the novella is one which, unfortunately, results from comparison. Having read Kim Stanley Robinson’ Mars trilogy, The Saturn Game’s science of planetary exploration, geology, and climatology feel half-baked—lacking in authenticity as it were. I do not know enough of the sciences to say for certain whether Anderson knew what he was talking about or if he was simply appropriating the lingo for story purposes, but regardless, a simplicity exists which hurts rather than helps the story. Or, from another perspective, Robinson has spoiled it for everyone.

In the end, The Saturn Game is an interesting piece of science fiction for its play and examination of realities we know are not real yet willingly to participate in to create a perceived reality. No better setting to elucidate this difference than the mortal danger of being the first group of intelligent astronauts to explore a planetary moon, the resulting story is the only one that could be told under the circumstances. Anderson well known for his love of myth, fantasy and science fiction, it seems increasingly appropriate that such a story come from his fingertips. The characters may be slightly wooden in profile, but their sentiments and conclusions take one more than one dimension.