That being said, I will avoid violence as long as possible. You can't out-violence the military industrial complex.
Discussion
Never mentioned violence
Ken Kesey said if you play their game, they win. This goes for violence, voting, protesting, or any other kind of engagement with their system of belief.
"Live with pen and sword in accord"
- Musashi
"The guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog’s - too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous, and agile an enemy to come to grips with.”
- Robert Taber
We should engage them on every front, even if its just an "economy of force" campaign somewhere they have the advantage. Like Meta.
I imagine some (or many) will take that route. I see physical force exclusively as a means to prevent further harm, not for punishment or warfare, but that's an ideological stance. It may not be practical for everyone.
I’m a believer in peaceful means. Enough war. Either we win through brilliant tech devs and subterfuge or it’s not for me. Bitcoin is peace yet extremely powerful peace
My wife's brother lives in a country where you can get 10 years jail and have your assets seized for being party to a Bitcoin transaction. (Nothing else needs to be proved: no malicious intent, no harm, no deception).
Bitcoin is violence, to those who are fiat.
it boggles my mind the violence people allow to go on around them without having their natural instinct to gtfo take over.
so disconnected from their hearts and their guts.
it's hard to be sympathetic towards people who deny their own humanity.
and if you try to tell them they think you are attacking them, when that's actually the defense system of their brainwashing.
when you point out that in some other area or happening to others, they get it, but they are completely blind to their own situation.
iterate that cycle a few times and you get to where i am now.
let the dead bury the dead.
most of them don't want to be unplugged.
That's terrifying. I am curious what country that is and if your brother in law has any desire to leave.
I don't see bitcoin as violence, but rather as a mirror onto which people project their internal mental state.
The fiat system is violence and so it sees everything oppositing it as violence as well.
I don't want to name the country, it has doxx potential if combined with other things I've said.
Wife left that country because she wanted to be her own person instead of always being known for being her late father's daughter.
BIL, well, he benefits a lot from being his late father's son, and he doesn't mind. He won't leave.
There are a lot of Third World countries with repressive cryptocurrency laws, unfortunately.
I'm very happy that West Africa seems to be bucking the trend!
Totally understood. It's not surprising to hear that repressive countries are banning bitcoin. It'll be interesting to watch what happens when they start missing the boat.
Glad your wife chose to liberate herself 🙂
I like the Musashi quote because it underlines that there are many forms of force, and they are synergistic when used together.
Physical force, even, has many forms other than violence.
I dealt with a head on car crash yesterday and sat with a badly injured lady as I fear when the helicopter took her she may not survive. Life is fragile. Yet I feel like a warrior against BS with Bitcoin. We must and will win this existential battle.
[ Laughs in Taliban ]
But I strongly agree with the first sentence. As long as reasonably practical, anyway...
Haha point taken. Veit Cong as well. In both cases I don't think those wars were meant to end, but they definitely outlasted, outmaneuvered, and outsmarted the US with very rudimentary tools.. I truly hope we can get to the other side of this without that kind of conflict.
Both are examples of defeats due to lack of social and political support by the people, not technology or logistics.
The US barely lost 58,000 soldiers in VN, and only 2,000 in Afghanistan and 4,000 in Iraq.
They could have easily won if the objective had been winning. But I think we all know that the objective in both cases and pretty much in all wars the US has engaged in since 1914 wasn't winning per se.
I agree, although I think in each of those cases "selection and maintainence of the aim" and personnel choices were decisive, upstream of social and political support.
I couldn't believe it when the wikileaked Afghan War Logs revealed DynCorp was hosting paedophile parties to recruit new Afghan National Police officers.
Well, it made a sick kind of sense - they can't defect to the Taliban (who would have them buried alive as per Shariah), and their foreign sponsors will have kompromat on them from the start.
But arming and uniforming child-molesting kidnappers really wasn't a great way to win the trust of the population.
Wonder if they do this at home?