If you lived all your life in a concentration camp and there was no chance of escape, would you fantasize about what you'd do if you ran it? Would you dream of uniting it with other concentration camps? Or would you think it would be better if the camp was broken up into smaller concentration camps?
Probably none of the above, unless you didn't even realize you lived in a concentration camp.
But what if you were the only one who realized you lived in a concentration camp, and everyone else was scheming and debating about the best "system" to put in place?
You would probably tell them that they are actually living in a concentration camp, and that their schemes and debates only serve to persuade the powerful that the camp has the people's underlying consent.
When personally powerless to stop encroachments on their freedom, the people can at least withdraw their consent. This weakens the powerful. The Eastern bloc fell because of it.
Since 9/11, the nature of the U.S. regime has revealed itself more and more, year by year. Withdrawing consent is the best way out.
9/11 provided an opportunity for unending wars, massive surveillance, and record spending. 9/11 benefited the powerful. Government rewarded its failure with even bigger government. It makes one wonder what really transpired that day.
Especially considering that Osama bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. (He is wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings, and is a "suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.") Why not 9/11? "No hard evidence."
When Afghanistan's Taliban government demanded President Bush provide them evidence bin Laden was behind the attacks, Bush refused and decided to not only capture Al Qaeda but overthrow the Taliban as well.
That appears to have been the intention all along. The U.S. was evidently plotting war in Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 - before 9/11.
Almost eight years after invading Afghanistan, there is no signficant Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. But after initially being deposed, the Taliban is winning the war.
This is just one curiosity stemming from 9/11. Why did we attack Afghanistan anyway?
Another curiosity is possible Israeli intelligence foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
Still another is, how much did Pakistani Intelligence fund the alleged hijackers, and what, if anything, did they know of the attacks?
And of course, while the collapse of the Twin Towers was incredible, the collapse of Building 7 was unbelievable.
Myself, I don't know what to believe about 9/11, and studying it is not a hobby of mine. Whatever the story, it appears to me to be shrouded in coverups and lies. But even if I learn the truth, whether it was a surprise attack, an inside job, or something more complicated, my outlook probably won't change. The problem isn't incompetent government, or evil government, or secret government. The problem is government, and the larger its jurisdiction, budget, scope, and power, the more incompetent, evil, and secretive it will be.
For many skeptics and "Truthers," however, 9/11 may only prove that neocons, or Republicans, or the Power Elite, are evil. The tragedy of 9/11 may lead them to question their religious faith. The reaction to 9/11 may lead them to question their faith in their own society, as they see the people are more upset by Kanye West's antics than by the government's response to 9/11. But 9/11 shaking faith in government per se? Hardly.
Leading 9/11 scholar David Ray Griffin believes we should replace national governments with global democracy. Instead of the fear of terrorism, he believes fear of global warming should be the central organizing principle of powerful government.
Canadian blogger Jeff Wells, who rails against "rugged individualism," is in despair, partly because 9/11 Truth has been taken over by the populist right.
Of which he may have a point. Social/global democratic Truthers and right-populist Truthers, who believe 9/11 was part of a global conspiracy, probably can't get along.
In any case, I perceive that the language can be similar. Both sides want "the people," not the ruling elite, to be in charge. Of course, the right believes the left-leaning "people" are being misled by the Ruling Elite, whereas the left believes the right-leaning "people" are being co-opted and duped as the Ruling Elite encourages their fear-mongering and paranoia.
In other words, the people are divided against themselves. They object to secrecy and abuse of power, but then are frightened by the personal choices of other people or the economic decisions of businesses . . . and go crawling back to government for answers.
Power to the "people" won't solve anything.
And the notion is ludicrous.
Imagine we had an absolute monarch instead. The monarch maintains defenses and enforces laws against force and fraud, and that's it. Should he be overthrown just because power isn't in "the people?"
Imagine the king told you what you could and couldn't grow in your own garden for your own consumption.
Wouldn't he then be viewed as a tyrant? He'd have no right to order you around in this way.
But hey, if FDR orders it, and the Supreme Court upholds it, it must be legitimate. And of course, SWAT raids on medical marijuana patients are justifiable on the same grounds.
Decisions of elected Congresses and Presidents, with the stamp of the Supreme Court, give an air of legitimacy where there is none.
What if the king banned the publication of books criticizing himself? Or any book or movie? Or any form of expression at all, including advertising, that he didn't like?
He'd be viewed as a tyrant. He'd have no right to arbitrary impose his preferences on others.
Yet if censorship discourages negative campaigning and promotes "clean" elections, even movies and books could be banned in our democratically elected, republican form of government.
If a King forces you to give up your gold and mandates paper money as legal tender, which his bank prints up at will, no one would doubt who would be to blame for the recessions and inflations - and it wouldn't be "free market capitalism." The King would be guillotined.
Yet, it is almost beyond question that a government "of the people" has the right to tell you what you can and can't accept as money.
I could go on and on with examples, but here's the point: if the law would be intolerable if imposed by an absolute monarch, it can not be legitimate if passed by the "people" or their representatives. Not in Congress, not in a world parliament, and not in a state legislature.
If the 9/11 Truth Movement is correct and it was an inside job, we must not move to global "democratic" government. Nor can we go back to a system that assumes if it's in the Constitution, or if it's done at the state instead of the federal level, it is valid.
We should instead lose our faith in government itself. Rather than hoping to reform it, transform it, or overthrow and replace it, we should instead reject it, protest it, and shrink it when and where we can.
We should withdraw our consent.