US Monopoly on Violence DEBUNKED: Underdog Countermoves SHOCK

This video discusses attacks on Lebanon, the rise of resistance movements, the US's perceived monopoly on violence, the capacity of smaller entities to react, and the limitations of diffusion strategy, ultimately advocating for individual resistance and a paradigm shift in understanding power dynamics.
[33:08-33:44]
Israel attacked Lebanon using technology, resulting in significant casualties with minimal international condemnation.
They've attacked Lebanon. Yup. They tried to occupy Lebanon. Couldn't though. They're constantly attacking- And they had one of the worst attacks on Lemono- Lebanon, att- attack using s- technology, bombs and cell phones and pagers killing and maiming so many people. And humanity just was like, "Meh." A lot of humanity was like, "Oh, that was a good one." And the international community is like, "Oh, shame on you, Israel. That was bad." And then they continued the genocide.
[35:06-35:38]
Resistance movements, such as Al-Qaeda and Ansar Allah in Yemen, are gaining strength and developing advanced weaponry.
And we often talk about it in terms of the proliferation, for example, of Al-Qaeda because of US wars and direct US support even or indirect, erect, you know. We can use those terms kind of loosely there. It's the resistance getting stronger. And, you know, we've talked about Yemen and Ansar Allah with hypersonic missiles that they've been building, preparing to fight a war to defend themselves and now to stand in solidarity with Gaza.
[37:06-37:46]
The US's perceived monopoly on violence is being challenged as opponents demonstrate the ability to make countermoves.
Well, I think, you know, to give it broad brushstrokes, the US has always considered itself to have a monopoly on violence, that it is the hegemon that can exert violence all around the world and twist the world to its own designs. That has been debunked in this very, very graphic way with this most recent issue, but I think it's not simply blowback, but it's also the fact that the US doesn't seem to be able to understand that their opponents are capable of countermoves. They think that all they have to do is do something and the other side will simply capitulate.
[38:50-39:29]
Smaller entities have the capacity to react against larger powers, and individuals can resist by withdrawing consent from an oppressive system.
You know, small target that you have been bullying has, you know, has a capacity to grow, to develop, to react, to create countermeasures. In the larger perspective, you know, the US has always had. Let's put it in a smaller perspective because they're putting in a way of a corporate status, doing this to fight back another corporate bully. But let's put this in an individual perspective, because we can do the same by stop playing this insane game and reduce them to nothing by removing our consent from an evil satanic system.
[43:25-43:28]
The diffusion strategy is ineffective against Russian capabilities, smaller nations are challenging larger powers, and withdrawing consent is more powerful than war.
Nature of war. Yeah.