>”Going after them with violence isn't likely to work, as much as I would like to. They have a monopoly on violence, we would be no better than them if we did. They want us to be violent so they have reasons to come after us.”

This is incorrect.

It will work because the more of them that are affected by the violence, the fewer there are to exercise their power. The bench is *laughably* thin, the bench will get scared out of power a few replacements in.

They have a monopoly on the regulated use of violence - they do not have a monopoly on violence itself. See video.

“We would be no better than them” - this is an ideological hangup. Then the question is do you want to win, or do you want the moral high ground because they’re not playing for the latter, they’re playing for the former - to win.

And on the last line quoted - they’re coming as soon as they work out there is a new financial elite whom they don’t inherently have control of. That is inevitable. You need to accept this and protect yourself from the inevitability, maybe work out what fiat price that is so you’ve got a target but accept they’re not just going to have sovereign people living in their realm when there is a Sats race globally.

I left Australia in Feb and moved to Vietnam, for many reasons, but if you read my note back-catalogue you’ll see I’ve been on this line for a while. Maybe check this one: nostr:note1dh22hye0yqvs3nw96utzdwa9tpd8v3ja0yq6h74pnzpj6rr39rws402jfc

And on your last para - see Buckminster Fuller. You build something new. That’s where we’re at.