Levels of the Game
By John Kaminski

The deeper you go, the darker it gets

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 hooking back up with 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 is 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 the 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. [See The Kennedys, Physical Evidence and 9/11.]

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 whoever 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 their 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 — whoever 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 (skylax@comcast.net) is the author of America's Autopsy Report, a collection of his Internet essays. For more of his work, also see http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html

Note added by Peter Meyer, 2003-11-30:

The arrest of the President (by a dissenting faction of the military) might occur as a result of a military coup following another staged "terrorist" attack of the magnitude of 9/11. But even without a coup it is legally possible to arrest George W. Bush because any person elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the administration or in the military takes the following oath:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This is not an oath of loyalty to the President or to the Commander-in-Chief, it is an oath to defend the Constitution. George W. Bush, by his actions, which have in effect nullified the Bill of Rights and have done enormous harm to his country and to its citizens, has shown himself to be a domestic enemy of the Constitution. His arrest (and the arrest of at least Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, similarly domestic enemies of the Constitution) is therefore the solemn duty of any member of the federal administration or of the military who is able to do so.

  • Lawrence Mosqueda: An Advisory to US Troops: A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

    See also:

    The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
    Liberty and Democracy Serendipity Home Page