Some questions that it might possibly be that warmblooded individuals ought to have been and now, be, asking themselves at this juncture in history
Is the continued endeavor to avoid incurring the consequences of encountering government criminality and violence via the non=participation in projects, the purpose of the institution and implementation of which in any given instance would be to provide protection for entities requiring and deserving protection from criminality and violenace, morally justified in a given instance?
Beyond that is the participation in such avoidance endeavors actually less likely to ultimately result in any given participant's actually avoiding the encountering of criminality and violence of the type such type "avoidance agenda" would have been implemented, in any given instance, to prevent?
The consideration of some historical examples of the engagement and avoidance of government, which for the past century in the nominal u.s. of A. and for several centuries in the European Countries whose money supplies the Rothschilds captured, has been synonymous with Jewish Supremacist, criminality and violence, can shed some invaluable light on this subject of such pre-eminent importance (see the identification of priorities promulgated in Divini Redemptoris, 1937).
Important to note that abstention from participation in the ever-present burden of ensuring the holding of the govt to the contract - one possible outcome of such type project in any given instance - that of the breaking of the commitment of criminals committed to use existing systems for the purpose of perpetrating o crime and violence in any given instance, is foregone and lost.
Magna Charta - protections of the Charter of Liberties and Assize of Clarendon were recovered w/o a single death or permanent disabling of anyone.
Solzhenitsyn, Michael Collins, Cristeros,Spanish, Ukranians, Niemoller