We need a new land that we can build something on.
Discussion
We have it - it’s called #Bitcoin
We don’t need physical land, we need an organised minority on top of this system they can’t control.
Study revolutions in history - they didnt control land, they controlled an organised minority who were all-in and uncompromising in the extreme.
I think we do need physical land that is independent from their fiat rules and regulations. Bitcoin isn't the only thing, I would argue that energy is equally if not more important.
Historically, they have never had this much centralised control.
Physical land just means a place with an address for them to send their goons to destroy you before you get too strong.
You need to learn the lessons from revolutions of the past, and guerrilla tactics and 5th Gen warfare of the present.
What good is some land they can take from you when you could use those funds to drone strike a sitting parliament and destroy the head of the snake?
We’re already over the hump of peak centralisation, we need to be ready for how decentralisation which actually work in practice.
I'm just speculating/spit-balling here so I don't have strong opinions on this.
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.
There are still a handful of countries that operate - at least to the best of our knowledge - outside of their systems. Granted they tend to be dictatorships, but they seem to be left alone.
If governments are working together, which I think it's indisputable through international organizations, are we better off tackling a system that has been built to coordinate on a worldwide scale, or isolating ourselves from these systems where possible and building something new?
>”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.
Fair points. Some of what I said is no doubt an ideological hangup.
Still, I'm not sure it would be that easy. It's not just the government, it's the ~70% of people who are supporting them and their efforts. We are also up against the NPCs that have enabled them to get us into the situation we are in. Those people are easily weaponised against dissidents. While one state my be 'thin', most are coordinated and would seek help from outside orgs such as the UN or similar.
They have a monopoly in the sense that they are closest to the money printer and settings laws, so working within the confines of their system you are going to face challenges that you otherwise wouldn't, but I accept that there would be a different set of challenges if we were to attempt something alone.
I am more strongly convicted to breakthrough technologies being the largest distruptors to their control mechanisms, namely Bitcoin and over unity, which have the strongest potential for loosening their grip on everyone.
I agree about SBRs. It's still too soon, more people need to adopt before they do.
Do you think Lenin had 70% onboard with his revolution? How about Robespierre? How about Guevara? Pol Pot?
We’re not up against the NPCs, they will follow whomsoever has power. NPCs don’t put themselves in the mix unless conscripted to do so.
Bitcoiners are a disorganised minority with lots of capital and no power, up against an organised minority with some capital (illusory) but mostly power.
These revolutionaries had little capital, but they were damn well organised.
Organisation is the key. It’s the hard part of decentralisation. Bitcoiners have a lot more capital to do stuff but they’re disorganised AF.
When that changes, the world changes.
A new game is afoot.
No argument there, organisation is key and what they are actively targeting through co-opted movements and invasions of privacy.