How am I twisting words? The government is a monopoly. Whether he created a monopoly on regulation (which is what he did) or whether he created the monopoly on force in which the monopoly on regulation exists is irrelevant to whether or not using a monopoly to stop monopolies is a performative contradiction.

Again, your position still boils down to, "we need a monopoly to prevent monopolies!" This is logically incoherent especially given that the situation you're referencing didn't happen in anarchistic environment (as evidenced by the rulers who intervened in the market and who set up the monopoly on the circulation of money upon which the market was forced to exist). If your position is that failure to prevent monopoly is an "inherent weakness", statism fails by your own criteria given that it literally means to give a monopoly to people.

You're projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto anarchism and being a hypocrite in the process.