Life and evolution are the literal definition of antifragility.
Not much more to say on that front.
If the world worked in exactly the way that you describe here then these people at the top level would not be wasting billions of dollars trying to manipulate public opinion. Actions have consequences. More often than not it is the path of least resistance that gets taken, but yet you are constantly positing about the path of hardest resistance being chosen and the entire world being lorded over by a single centralized entity.
That is simply not how the world works.
It's a good thing too because if the world worked the way you are constantly saying it does than your silly little homestead isn't going to save you when there are drones and robots looking over your shoulder 24/7. Like oh they can shut off the internet on a whim but they can't walk over and take all your land and throw you in prison. Okay then.
A lot of the comments you make on my posts are the same old doomsday scenarios. I don't need to waste time preparing for what happens when a tiger is clamping down on my neck. It's not going to happen, and in the one in a billion chance it does happen there's not a god damn thing I can do about it. If I start seeing tigers walking around outside my home then I'll make sure to arm myself. Not before.
You don't think having billions of people working for you is a worthy goal? Also, this is hardly the venue to explicitly detail 'exactly' how everything works, so that's not a fair criticism. Also, no one knows 'exactly' how these banksters operate. Here's some actual scholars that have been researching 'how it works' in their academic positions for their entire professional lives, and I bet their perspective is novel to you. At ~1hr 30min they state 'This is science' to underscore their vast evidentiary basis for their claims, including DNA, documented history, and current political affairs.
Shortly thereafter the the guy uses the phrase 'The power of the entire world working for you...' (~1:32:00) IONO mang, DYOR.
Hardly. I do mention centralization, but often discuss why they will fail, because they're incapable of into society. Psychopaths don't see people as others like themselves, but as things they can manipulate to get them to benefit themselves. They can't have friends. They have to take what others have, and that's their one trick. When they don't have plebs to parasitize and democide to steal from, they will turn on each other. So, you misunderstand, or mischaracterize, my thesis.
I agree. They've already taken my real property, multiple times, through various mechanisms of courts. I'm well aware a half a dozen thugs with guns can end me and take what's mine. I'm not going to live forever, anyway. Since I don't hoard money, I'm not on their radar, though. Security through obscurity is a very weak defense, but it works for Hive, and it can't hurt. Anyway, I'm going to die one way or another, so I might as well die on a hill worth dying on.
Cataclysms happen. People differentially survive them depending on a variety of factors, depending on the nature of the cataclysm. Sometimes people just get lucky and the rock doesn't land on their head. However people that take risk into account and prepare for it preferentially survive. Throwing caution to the wind is what opponents most love to see.
Which is easier for technocrats, censoring information on the internet or sending gangs of armed thugs to dispossess people of their land? In the wider perspective all I am saying is hedge. And, don't make silly, indefensible comparisons between digital data that is utterly dependent on the permission of banksters to be transmitted and terrestrial life that has proven it's resilience for ~4B years. I'm saying that too, but mostly my point is hedge.