US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Levels of the Game (english)
01 Dec 2003
The deeper you go the darker it gets...





John Kaminski



Levels of the game

Date :
Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:21:03 -0500



Levels of the game

The deeper you go, the darker it gets



By John Kaminski
skylax (at) comcast.net



Did you know there's a war game played by Air Force types that posits a
situation where the United States in the year 2017 conducts a preemptive
first strike on China by using a next-generation space shuttle, which
swoops down and annihilates strategic targets before booking back up to
the Space Station? This is followed by the total destruction of China by
a spaced-based laser, which the Pentagon humorously calls the Death
Star.

I learned of this gut-wrenching scenario by watching a video titled
"Arsenal of Hypocrisy," a frightening array of future probabilities
compiled by Gainesville, Florida filmmaker Randy Atkins
(http://www.cfvs.com) detailing a shocking portrait of America's
militarization of space. This film features the commentary of anti-nuke
legend Bruce Gagnon, social critic Noam Chomsky, and former astronaut
Edgar Mitchell, as well as former president Dwight Eisenhower, and
provides such a chilling view of the future that it simply blew all the
current news right out of my brain as my jaw dropped open and stayed
that way for a few hours.

I mean, what's the point of speculating about what really happened
on 9/11 or the sinister butchery of innocents in Iraq when a plan for
total domination of the earth through calculated American violence is
already in place and inexorably evolving toward its ugly conclusion?

The game is over. Nobody can oppose this war machine. It doesn't
matter if we find out that no planes were actually used in the 9/11
deception, that it was all holograms and film. What court, what cop, is
going to act on our discovery? They're all bought and paid for. And so
are the "peace-loving" Democrats who are now clamoring to bestow their
own version of American totalitarianism on the people of the world.

"Whoever controls space will win all the wars on the earth," says
Gagnon in the film. "There is no challenger on this earth able to stand
against us.

Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Nuclear Power and
Weapons in Space and organizer of many demonstrations at the Kennedy
Space Center, goes on: "We have 7500 nuclear missiles, China has 20. We
are going to manage China."
He explains that the deployment of U.S. forces in Central Asia are
principally about encircling China, including "deploying theater missile
defense systems off the coast of China."

He concludes: "They don't want the American people to understand the
depth of the plans for moving the arms race into the heavens ... we
shouldn't have any illusions anymore about our country ... our democracy
is under the control of corporations."

At least watching the film took my mind off the depressing load of
e-mails I face every day. These e-mails are certainly just as
enlightening as Atkins' film, and one from my pal Hazel the other day
got me thinking that even the brightest among the people I have come to
know and respect on the Internet are still pretty much in the dark as to
what is really going on.

The story, now widely circulated
(http://www.rense.com/general45/wh.htm), involved a fellow named Michael
Meiring, who happened to blow his legs off last year while constructing
a bomb in the Philippines. The theory is that Meiring, operating under
the cover of being a "treasure hunter" (a common CIA occupation), was
instantly whisked out the country by American agents to presumably a
secure and secret location.

Hazel reported he was "a CIA operative and had spent 10 years on
assignment associating with Islamic groups, Abu Sayef, MNLF, Moro
Islamic Liberation Front, and other Philippine based Islamic groups,
supplying them with US counterfeit notes (courtesy of US intelligence)
and bomb making materials so that they may create terrorist mayhem
within the Philippines, giving the US a pretext to move in and "help,"
just like in Indonesia just like nearly everywhere else these
Mafia-like thugs can plant their terror and, "protection" racket."

The story set off alarm bells with me. I have long insisted that
al-Qaeda is nothing more than a CIA/Mossad strategem, useful in creating
havoc when the U.S. military wants to respond to a threat. Got a place
you want to invade? Have al-Qaeda blow something up, and we'll respond.
It's a policy very much on the order of the Israeli formula, which
creates terror to respond to whenever it wants to instill its repression
of those whose land it wants to steal.

So now that everytime I hear about al-Qaeda doing some dastardly
deed, I simply assume it is U.S.-Israeli operatives committing some
"false-flag" operation in order to achieve some other, devilish purpose,
just as we saw in Istanbul, Turkey the other day.

I wrote about this earlier
(http://www.worldnewsstand.net/03/John_Kaminski/25.htm) in a piece
called "The perfect enemy" which was widely circulated. The point being,
an enemy under your complete control which you can deploy at your own
whim is the perfect vehicle to keep the war machine making money, and
Meiring is one of the best examples of that formula.

The so-called Muslim insurgency in the Philippines (and in a gaggle
of other countries) is nothing more than a false-flag operation provoked
by the CIA/Mossad construction named al-Qaeda in order to provide a
justification for further military action and expenditures on armaments,
not to mention that new cash cow, rebuilding countries the U.S. has
destroyed, using American corporations with close ties to the Bush
Administration. That's really the growth industry you should be
investing in, if you're a murderous pig with absolutely no conscience
about who you kill and what you destroy.

Istanbul was the most recent example of one of these false flag
operations, as was Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, and, a little while back, the
explosion in Bali, meant to exascerbate tensions and repression against
Muslims in Indonesia.

Of course the granddaddy of all these provocations was 9/11, where
the money men blasted the most famous American corporate landmark, made
billions on savvy stock transactions and insurance claims, and created
for themselves the perfect pretext to spread their population-reducing
and profit-producing mayhem all around the globe, not to mention put all
the American people in prison by means of Patriot Act and other
repressive legislation.

And speaking of 9/11, I have been involved in the most fascinating
round-robin conversation among absolutely the best, most conscientious
researchers in the world. I would like to share some of this debate (but
not all) with you, to maybe get your opinions on an apparent schism
among the group, and also alert you to some very portentous
developments.

This debate was essentially triggered by the curious revelations of
Mike Ruppert, certainly the most well-known (and deservedly so) of those
proposing an alternative view of what happened on 9/11. I term the
revelations curious because what should have been page 1 news among the
9/11 research community was buried near the bottom of an otherwise
pedestrian column about old JFK news and the issue of when the world's
oil supplies will run out.

Ruppert admitted as a person that he believed the WTC towers were
not brought down by the jetliners that crashed into them, that he
believed the buildings were destroyed by demolition charges. He also
said he believed no airliner hit the Pentagon, and that something else
was responsible for the death and damage there.

This was a change in his basic policy of reporting, and the curious
part of it was that he published his admission so unobtrusively. The
admission, however, sent shockwaves through the 9/11 research community,
and opened up whole new areas for renewed debate.

Because ... if the so-called top 9/11 researcher anywhere had
revised his opinion, and now believed that the towers in New York were
NOT felled by airliners, and that the Pentagon was NOT really hit by an
airliner, it not only gives all those websites and researchers who have
been insisting these very things all along a lot more credibility in the
public eye, but it also astronomically increases the chances that the
general public will begin to believe that George W. Bush's official
version of what happened on 9/11 is an absolute lie, and that our
country and the world are in much bigger trouble than most people have
been willing to believe.

Ruppert's admission significantly increases the likelihood, in the
public mind, that 9/11 was an inside job, meant to create a police state
atmosphere within the United States, and also meant to create a pretext
for bombing any country Bush says is harboring the terrorists who did
9/11.

BUT ... if the Twin Towers were demolished, and the Pentagon was hit
by something other than a hijacked airliner ... well, you have to ask:
how could Arabs in a cave in Afghanistan have pulled that off? Hmm?
Wouldn't you agree?

And if Arabs in a cave in Afghanistan didn't do the dirty deed, who
did?

Of course, the shocking part of contemplating that question is that
it can't help but shatter the whole world view of whomever has the
courage to confront it. I mean, we're talking about the president of the
United States condoning the killing of American citizens, a lot of them,
right in the middle of America's biggest city.

It's not an easy assertion to consider, for any of us. Because it
means that everything this country has stood for, and been built upon,
has been a lie, or at least is now a lie. It means that our leaders were
willing to sacrifice thousands of its own citizens simply to facilitate
a more aggressive and lucrative geopolitical agenda.

It is perfectly understandable to all how the mind of a loyal
American would recoil at that idea, declare it preposterous, and consign
advocates of such a theory to the loony bin.

And yet one of the top researchers of 9/11 in the world, Mike
Ruppert, has admitted that he has been convinced of the truth that the
WTC towers were demolished, and that the Pentagon was not hit by an
airliner.

And now the choices are clear for every American. You can either
hide your head in the sand, and continue to believe that the government
of the good old USA would never do such a thing to its own people, or
you can confront the evidence. I think now the choice has come down to
confronting the evidence or not taking care of your own life.

Which leads me to the little matter of the schism among 9/11
researchers, precious few of whom (and those who do now fall under a
glaring spotlight of suspicion as to their motivations) believe that
jetliners felled the WTC towers or that a jetliner hit the Pentagon.

The schism is a matter of what constitutes political realism. Of
what is possible under the circumstances.

I have long advocated the immediate arrest, on the basis of probable
cause for obstruction of justice, of the president and all his staff and
Cabinet. I'd prefer this order extend to most members of Congress as
well. More detailed charges of conspiracy to commit mass murder, and
conspiracy to commit treason, could be developed after the suspects were
incarcerated and not able to do any more damage to innocent people all
over the world.

Among 9/11 researchers, I am not in the majority, clearly. Though
I'm not alone, either.

What is happening now is that several high-profile investigators
want to make a movie about 9/11 and the sham that the official
government probe has become. When this was announced, a number of us
worried that the film could become another layer of the coverup if the
right questions weren't asked.

We seem split into two camps: those who believe the crime must be
punished and the perpetrators whomever they may be arrested and
prosecuted, and those who believe (as Ruppert and others do) that the
American government must be maintained, that we must go through
channels, work within the system, and achieve the best results we can
given the political realities we confront.

So what's your call? Should we let the killers slide in the interest
of maintaining the decorous, storied infrastructure of the American
hierarchy, or should we really go after the real murderers of all those
innocent people with everything we have in our guts?

Next time you read anything about 9/11, or the Patriot Act, or the
exterminations now ongoing in Iraq, or government scientists developing
the famous 1918 strain of Spanish flu, or white-haired Americans being
clubbed by Miami police, try to keep this question in mind.

You do know, my friends, which side I'm on.


John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a
collection of his Internet essays. See http://www.johnkaminski.com/
For more of his work, also see
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html

See also:
www.rense .com
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.