Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”.  The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures.  We are, of course, very social beings, and our natures drive us to seek those of like mind and spirit in what some might call a “tribal imperative”.  However, this imperative to organize is often manipulated by those who understand the psychological mechanisms behind it.  Oligarchs and tyrants abuse and exploit the inherent social natures of the people in order to fool them into abandoning their individuality for the sake of the group, or some abstract and dishonest ideal.  When successful, the organization of a culture becomes bitter and twisted, changing from a tribe or a community of sovereign individuals, into a nightmare collective of soulless sheep.

Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them.  Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict.  In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others.  This causes a severe mental and emotional disturbance within a population.  In order to reconcile their conflicting needs within a system that does not nurture their quest for transparency, they tend to unconsciously cling to the “majority view” as if their very existence depends on it.  The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.

Their rationale is: 

If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by “statistical law”, it most likely is true.  Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy..

The problem is, history has shown that at pivotal moments in a society the “majority opinion” is usually WRONG.  Any progress we do enjoy as a species is almost always due to the actions of tireless aware minorities, or even a lone man or woman who saw what the rest of us could not.   

The greatest discoveries and truths have always been the product of individual thought and effort; numerous individuals working on parallel paths to generate new pieces of knowledge or more balanced and principled methods of living.  There has never been such a thing as a collectivist realization, or a collectivist truth, and there never will be. Collectives do not think creatively or honestly.  Their only concern is the survival of the system at all costs, and usually this requires a foundation of lies.

As a nation or culture edges towards collectivist tyranny, the battle-cry of the “majority opinion” will drown out all other reasonable voices.  It has happened before, and unfortunately, it will happen again.  In America today, I believe we are nearing the moment where the mass view becomes the only acceptable or legally sanctioned view.  With the 2nd Amendment issue alone, the most common argument by anti-gun proponents is that “the majority opinion is on their side”.  I’m here to point out that the “majority opinion” is, in fact, an illusion, and completely irrelevant.  Here is why…

Most “Majorities” Are Fake Majorities

A recent poll on gun rights touted by Reuters stated that over 74% of the American public supported new and stricter gun laws including a ban on “automatic” (do they mean semi-automatic?) weapons:

Reuters pretends as if the poll is a sweeping vindication of anti-gun advocates, but what is the deeper story behind the poll?  Reuters waits until the very last line of the article to mention that only 559 people participated, which hardly seems like a large enough pool to determine the overall position of the entire American public.  Who were these people who were polled?  Where were they polled?  What questions were they asked and how were the questions posed?  All of these factors can be manipulated during polling to produce a desired end result.

In April of 2012, a similar poll stated a somewhat similar case, but also relented that a “majority” of Americans supported most pro-gun positions, including conceal carry, and the need for civilians to intervene during a criminal event:

What the polls do not outline is the fact that many people are undecided on a number of details, and that there is no clear “majority” on any of them.  Polling methods are indicative of the mainstream farce.  In most cases, when a mass of people are presented as a “majority”, we do not know exactly how that conclusion was arrived at.  Who decided these people were of the same mind and how? 

Beyond this problem, those people who claim to be a part of the majority, are sometimes ill informed and do not have all the facts at their disposal.  If there is indeed such a thing as any majority, it could only be the majority of people who do not know what to think!  So, instead of the gun issue, for instance, being a fight between a “majority” of anti-gun advocates versus a “minority” of pro-gun advocates, we are actually looking at a fight between two educated MINORITIES, pro-gun and anti-gun, pro-liberty and anti-liberty, with an uneducated and oblivious public in-between.

To gun control propagandists I would point out that being able to lie to the unaware and con them into parroting your talking points is not the same as “having the majority on your side”.  There may be some utility to retaining an army of bleating sheep, but in the end what do sheep really do beyond bleat, except eat, sleep, watch, and wait to see which way the winds blow…?  

In A Republic The Majority View Does Not Matter

America was established as a Republic, not a Democracy, and in a republic the natural and inborn rights of the people, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, are not subject to the mood swings of the masses.  Each individual has certain rights, including the right to firearms and self-defense, REGARDLESS of what the so-called mainstream believes.  That is to say, even if 99.9% of all people decided tomorrow that the right to free speech should be abolished, this would still be unconstitutional.  The .1% who retain the right to free speech are not required to adhere to such law.

The same rule applies to the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.  When shills for gun control like Pierce Morgan claim that the majority supports them, what they don’t seem to grasp in their collectivist fervor is that even if this were true, it is a meaningless sentiment.  Our rights as Americans are not allowed to be held hostage by 51% of the population (or any other claimed percentage).  This is not how a republic operates.                   

Regardless of what is decided in the near term on gun control, we as citizens, protected by the legal shield of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, are not morally required to comply, even if the “majority” says we are.  Mob rule is no rule.

The Majority Is Usually Wrong

As stated previously, the majority of people are generally ill-informed until the fight for a particular issue is long over.  Only when the dust has settled do the masses take a side (usually the side of the winner).  When the day finally arrives where we live within a system that nurtures free individual thought and our political leadership no longer seeks to manipulate the people in subversive fashion, then, perhaps, the situation will change.  However, for now, the “majority” cannot be trusted to determine the course of the future for every single one of us.  They are too open to exploitation, and too easy to sway.

While many see being a part of the mainstream as a safe method for remaining “in the know”, the opposite usually holds true.  The mainstream is instead a place where people go so that they don’t have to think, and such an environment rarely finds its foundation standing firmly on truthful grounds.          

If the majority was really a legitimate deciding factor in the course of history, then the first American Revolution would have never occurred in the first place.  That fight was won by a minority of men and women who knew they were right in the face of a malicious world power structure supported by an ignorant subsection of the populous.  Generations to come would be influenced by a small group of people who stood on honor and principle in the face of the tyranny of the “majority”.

Our True Enemy Is An Elitist Minority

Elite oligarchies are notorious for using the masses as a shield for their criminal behavior.  Whenever an atrocity is committed, the elite claim it was for the “greater good”.  That it was done in the name of “national security”.  That the “majority” is in agreement with their methods.  They do this in order to artificially inflate the size of the obstacle in our path and make us feel as though we stand against “the whole world”.  They do this to make us imagine that we are too small to make a difference. 

This tactic is also designed to redirect our energies away from the oligarchs and towards a nameless faceless mob of people who may or may not be aware that they are being used as cannon fodder.

As much as Liberty Movement proponents and 2nd Amendment guardians may despise the naïve prattle of the so-called “Left”, and the fact that their propaganda seems to be spreading like a malignant tumor across the country, from gun grabbing to socialized nanny government, we must remember that they are not who we are really at war with.  They are merely spectators in the arena, and though their chanting against us might make us feel as though our opponent has won favor, in the end all will be decided by force of will between the two gladiators, and the bread and circuses will matter little.   

The fight for liberty ultimately has nothing to do with awakening a “majority of people”.  Rather, our goal should be to gather a tireless and courageous minority that can weather the coming storm.  If we endure the crisis and remove the anti-liberty minority from the picture, the dumbfounded masses caught with their pants down from the very beginning will in the end simply follow along as they always do.

I have heard it argued recently that the gun control issue in particular is one of wider social implications.  That pro-gun advocates are too “selfish” to see the big picture, and that we do not care about the safety of our nation as a whole.  This is the collectivist methodology at work, utilizing the false “majority” as a tool for oppression.  The fact is, Constitutionalists are the ONLY people in this country today that see the big picture, and the only people who are not thinking merely of themselves when it comes to the safety of our society.  The average anti-gun socialist is acting not out of reason as they pretend, but out of fear.  They want us to relinquish our rights so that they can retain the illusion of safety. 

Behind this drive for a deluded sense of mainstream “compassion” and “compromise” is a concerted effort by the establishment to destroy the last barrier to overt centralization; the armed citizen.  The language for this is already being carefully implanted: 

We are a “fringe element”.  We are “narcissists”.  We are “barbarians”.  We are clinging to the last vestiges of an archaic philosophy which no longer applies to our modern and “civilized” age.  The vast “majority” is against us, and we should shut up, comply, abdicated the fight, and take our seat at the collectivist table while one still remains open to us.

Okay…so we’re barbarians.  We’re not interested in a “seat at the table”.  We are not interested in participating in the lie.  We are not interested in playing a bit part in the grand faux theater of the “global community”.  If the majority of Americans really do believe that the death of the Constitution is the best course for our culture, then the majority has gone clinically insane, or pathetically soft, and has abandoned all conscience.  We will remain in our little “minority”, and we will put a stop to the progression of collectivized despotism without them, and they can do what they please in the meantime, as long as they stay out of our way.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
krispkritter's picture

One man and a gun. Make a stand.

redpill's picture

If the majority was so overwhelming then there is a Constitutional path to change the Constitution.  But because this "majority" is really not the majority, but rather a revolving group of stupid, bribed constituencies, instead of attempting to change the Constitution using the legitimate method they've instead steadily undermined it.  The Constitution is far from perfect, certainly in the respect that the judiciary has no enforcement mechanism which has resulted in numerous cases of them of being bullied, or simply laying down for the other branches for fear that their perceived stature would be diminished.  But if we actually followed the principles within it, the judiciary check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches would not be nearly so strenuously tested.  And obviously our country would be far better off if did not have the massive burden of government that we've allowed to occur.

But these issues were all covered early on, by Adams, de Toqueville, Mill, etc.  The danger was always clear, the limitation on direct democracy to prevent it is why the notion of a Constitutional Republic exists.  That temporary factions can rise up and momentarily possess a majority should not supercede the rights, will, or obligation on those in the future.  But this very basic notion is completely lost in the myopic fools that think a few more taxes, a few more sacrificed liberties, a few more regulations, a few more government programs, etc., will all lead to a better life.  Depiste the fact that it hasn't, and that it's getting worse.  We have gone from a country that was founded on wise principles that protected our freedoms from our first hand experiences with tyranny to an utterly infantile despotism that runs screaming from one fake crisis to the next, duping the drooling populace into giving up more of their life's labor and natural rights at every turn.  Utterly fucking pathetic.

A Lunatic's picture

But they (Adams, de Toqueville, Mill, etc.) didn't have to worry about Al Qaeda..........

CH1's picture

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

A Lunatic's picture

'twas. It seems my lunacy knows no bounds.........

Oh regional Indian's picture

How majority opinion is "formed".

Highly recommended read here:


I remember it like yesterday.


Kobe Beef's picture

Let's see.. How is the Majority Opinion formed?

Hmm..Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, SONY, CBS, NBC Universal, Bertelsmann, Vivendi...

Did I leave anybody out? Oh yeah--Operation Mockingbird.

Your thoughts are not your own. Neither are your "facts" about places you've never been, nor "opinions" on people you've never met. What you claim are your thoughts are actually symbols and words that have been placed and replaced in your consciousness, since you learned a language and watched images projected on a screen. "Humanity is the symbol-using class of life.."

However, once that symbolic matrix of common communication becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, you get The Matrix..Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, et al. literally own the pathways into your consciousness for a stunningly large time of your waking day. To paraphrase the Last Psychiatrist, "Whether you believe in it or not, It is very interested in you."

I suspect Oh Regional Indian knows this because he meditates. You are not your thoughts. Your thoughts are not your own. You can sit, breathe, and watch them come and go.

trav777's picture

who owns and comprises the executives of all of these media entities?

Kobe Beef's picture

Depends on what you mean by own. Any Global Domination Game is a team sport, so I assume there are many voices.

The majority shareholders are probably just mutual funds or other vanilla investment vehicles. They say: "We want more money."

The Directors and Executives are mostly appointed by their respective Boards. So it would be interesting to know their networks and evaluation criteria. They say: "We want more money."

I'm sure the Anglo-Dutch-Khazarian-American Axis has a stake or two in the proceedings. They already have enough money (owning Central Banks for the last few centuries and all). So they say: "We want your minds."

And then there's whoever picked up the reins of Wisner's Wurlitzer. It says: "Pick up the phone or you're Permindex-ed."

The fact is the Machine exists. And it remains very powerful so long as The People don't understand that they call televised events "Programming" for a reason. 



knowless's picture

did you hear they caught osama?

A Lunatic's picture

Again? Holy shit, talk about having nine lives. Where? When? How? Like, OMG!!!!

knowless's picture

he was in pakistan, they made a movie about it.

Ima anal sphincter's picture

I thought it was Obushma. Oh no...... wrong again. He got away with millions of dead souls.

Osama (IF HE WAS actually responsible for anything), only took out 3000. Chump change compared to the truly experienced.

JuliaS's picture

One cannot profit off a stock that goes nowhere, even if the value remains consistently high. Likewise, rules that apply equally to everyone offer much less profit potential than ones that fluctuate, or better - apply unevenly. Tell some people to obey laws while disobeying them and presto! You're rich!

Physics obeys the same rule. Want to spin a turbine? Create pressure, temperature or height differential and obstruct equilibrium with a machine.

Government is such a machine - an engine that divides and puts itself inbetween in order to spin the gears, via the rest of us trying to undo its crimes.

Laws are made to protect lawmakers from law abiding citizens. For that reason we have gun control. Gun bans themselves don't prevent criminals from owning guns. They prevent the rest from defending themselves when someone else pulls one out.

S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

Not to dispute the greater point but:

One cannot profit off a stock that goes nowhere, even if the value remains consistently high.

One can profit in this scenario -- just start writing options and collecting the dough.

Taint Boil's picture



If the majority was so overwhelming then there is a Constitutional path to change the Constitution.

I often pondered that many times.

+1000 good post

Lordflin's picture

The Constitution protects us from nothing... Our protection resided in a society bounded by moral conscience... So long as that existed the principled agreement known as the Constitution had meaning. Once the assault on morals was successful the outcome was inevitable.

I would like to believe there was an easy way back from here... As I am certain is true for many of you, I have children trying to make their way in this world... Some new enlightenment as it were. But history seems to suggest that once society has embraced such corruption as has ours, the only path forward leads into utter darkness. It seems only then that men rediscover the need for light.

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Every Jew needs a gun for when the Nazis come back ... and we are all Jews, in effect (tho not the Zionist kind)

The 'genocide chart', with nine 20th century government episodes of governments killing a cumulative total of over 100 million people ...

The common element in each one, was government confiscating guns beforehand

Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Communist China, Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and most recently Rwanda in the 1990s

Specific laws to limit and confiscate privately-owned guns, documented in each case

From the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or JPFO, 'Death by Gun Control'

A Lunatic's picture

Yeah, it all starts with "you don't 'need' guns"...............Not this time around, Bitches................

Harbanger's picture

It's too late to disarm Americans before the collapse.

nmewn's picture

On this day in American history, Panetta announced American women carrying "assault weapons" on the battlefield to be a good thing.

While (on the same day) Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill saying American women having "assault weapons" in their own homes is a bad thing.

Surely I'm missing something...or not ;-)


Cathartes Aura's picture

as long as their personal body sovereignty is still up for the "voter" to decide, via Constitutional Amendments, I would think a means to defend themselves against government tyranny is a "good thing" - sounds like a "battlefield" agenda. . .

nmewn's picture

I think we finally agree on "something".

The voter(s) don't get to decide on issues of personal sovereignty. Whether made legal or remain illegal by the state, its still your choice...with all the ramifications (or lack thereof) that come with it via the state.

But when some put pressure on the state to intrude on my personal sovereignty it becomes a real issue.

Which is why I had a problem know who ;-)

Cathartes Aura's picture

you know who was/is a useful tool to incite "taking sides" - pretty sure we agree on that, lol.

But when some put pressure on the state to intrude on my personal sovereignty it becomes a real issue.

really good to read that, because that's all I was ever trying to point out - if the rallying cry is going to be "liberty" then this time around, some definitions are in/on order.

personal sovereignty is worth fighting them for.


nmewn's picture

Yes, I'm very familiar with what divides us and they're very good at it...both sides.

I think the only issue between us has always been, personal sovereignty (and the responsibilities that go along with it) doesn't wind up costing someone or something else theirs.

I mean, we can't have people going around doing this as a society just because they want to...

 "A Venice man is facing several charges after allegedly going on a naked rampage inside a couple’s home in North Fort Myers Monday.


Gregory Matthew Bruni, 21, is facing charges of damage to property, burglary, battery and resisting an officer.


The victims told the Lee County Sheriff’s Office they were inside around 6:50 p.m. when they heard noises on the roof.


They went outside and saw a naked man, later identified as Bruni, on the roof, according to a Lee County Sheriff’s Office report.


They said the man then jumped off the roof and onto one of the victims, knocking him down.


The man then ran into their home and pulled a 72-inch television off a living room wall, breaking it.


The victim told investigators he yelled for his wife to get a gun as Bruni continued to thrash around the house, knocking over a wet/dry vacuum and spilling its contents on the floor.


The wife fired three shots from a .38 caliber revolver at Bruni but missed and hit a wall.


Bruni then fell to the ground and began masturbating in the living room before he ran into the victims’ son’s bedroom and began rubbing his face with clothing, according to the report.


The male victim retrieved his shotgun from the master bedroom, but never fired at Bruni.


Deputies arrived on the scene and tried to detain Bruni, who started flailing around on the ground and speaking but not making sense.


Deputies said Bruni sucked up the water that had spilled from the vacuum and spit it out.


They said he tried to flee several times and had to be Tased as he was taken into custody.


Deputies later discovered Bruni defecated near the front door and in a hallway inside the residence.


He was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital for observation. Doctors advised deputies they couldn’t identify “what Bruni was on” and were conducting further tests, according to the report."

I mean...we have to have some sort of standards ;-)

Cathartes Aura's picture

no nit-pickin' over here tonight. . .

that story you related. . . what can I say?

more surreal with each line!

me, by the end.

JimS's picture

Actually one only needs to go back to May 31/June 1, 1921, in Greenwood OK, a suburb of Tulsa, to see why citizens need to have the 2nd Amendment.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Except that today a Specter AC130 Gunship can kill your entire neighborhood from well, well out of the effective range of anything you can get your hands on.

Historically it was soldiers and mercenaries kicking in your door. Today, it's drones firing missiles at you. You have no chance. You cannot even see or hear it coming.

rehypothecator's picture

On the other hand there's quite a bit of public opposition to using those AC-130s half a world away to kill savages.  Imagine how well it would go over in the court of public opinion to have those things blasting away houses here in America. 

Totentänzerlied's picture

"On the other hand there's quite a bit of public opposition to using those AC-130s half a world away to kill savages."

Really, I don't see any. Cindy Sheehan pulled a David Copperfield right about the time Obamessiah won his first election. An anti-war movement does not exist.

Imagine how well it would go over in the court of public opinion to have those things blasting away houses here in America. 

I can imagine, the real question is: can you imagine the sublime and total lack of care on the part of the perpetrators?

I'm sure the Chinese were just ****ing thrilled about how Tiananmen Square went down. Did you see any Chinese Politburo heads roll for that? Any popular uprising or revolt? Public outcry, hearings, and investigations? Nope, nope, nope. It's the same story every single time. Because once the government has telegraphed its willingness to blow your neighbors heads off their shoulders with extreme prejudice, there's no a priori reason to believe you are not next, and that's a damn good reason not to make any trouble or speak out.

Governments murder their own people all the ****ing time with total impunity. Wake up.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

How are those AC-130's working out in Afghanistan??? Because a bunch of towelheads armed with nothing except AKs and Enfields seem to have outlasted them pretty nicely.

Citxmech's picture

For those interested in hearing about our tactics in detail, check out this interview with the folks behind the new documentary: "Dirty Wars":

Really powerful stuff.  The interview starts at about 23:00 (transcript provided below).


Rogue Trooper's picture

"I'm sure the Chinese were just ****ing thrilled about how Tiananmen Square went down. Did you see any Chinese Politburo heads roll for that? Any popular uprising or revolt? Public outcry, hearings, and investigations? Nope, nope, nope."

Toten..... you just destroyed your own argument.  Chinese CITIZENS where fuckin' disarmed long ago.... yep, they proved that they can make a 'stand' in front of a tank and grease the tread but that is about it.

As was stated by Buckaroo... a bunch of rag-heads with a few AKs, the odd Enfield and I would add a few more Martini-Henry's ( A hell of SLUG!)... have defeated to a stalemate each occupying super power....British, USSR and now the UK?NATO?USSA?GOLDMAN..... AXIS of GOOD.

We rest out case you moron.... I'm only comforted by the fact that you are not on our side. YOU would clearly be a liability. We will see how it all works out for ya!

Mike in GA's picture

That would mean the military has been loosed on the American public and THAT would mean unimaginable open war.  In open war, a rifle is still effective against the command and control and logistical chain that sent the AC130.  TPTB will win that battle but it's gonna be a long, one-shot-at-a-time war, too.

TPTB still need soldiers and mercenaries and even with all their equipment, they are still vulnerable. 

That's history speaking, not me.

Totentänzerlied's picture

"That would mean the military has been loosed on the American public and THAT would mean unimaginable open war."

Wise one, what exactly happened during the linked instances of genocide? Exactly this. The equipment was always available, even if they had to steal it from their citizens. The money was always there, someone is always willing to extend credit. The soldiers were always there, just trying to feed their families or whatthefuckever excuse they use.

My point, which seems to have been missed by all and every one, is that until recently, the weapons being confiscated were roughly a match for the weapons of the people doing the confiscating. No more. The Redcoat with his breech-loading musket was coming to take your breech-loading musket of roughly equal standing. The SWAT thug kicking in your door today is not carrying a 9mm pistol or a .22 carbine. 

I never said they are invincible. Guerilla tactics are time-tested and proven. I implied that the historical relationship between your firepower and your oppressor's firepower has been growing steadily in favor of the latter.

This is why a ban on "assault weapons" is truly a fucking slap in the face to anyone who knows history. Had the American colonists been armed solely with bows and arrows, they would not have fared so well. An "assault rifle" - semiautomatic or fully automatic, makes no difference to me - is a modern musket. By that, all that is meant is, it is comparable to the standard issue weapon of the country's infantry (riflemen, if you prefer).

If you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to aid in resistance of tyranny, you need to ask yourself: why stop at shotguns and pistols, the military certainly has not.

Just tell me, how well did those guerilla tactics work for the domestic victims of Mao, Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, and Pol Pot? In every instance of genocide, we find that there is never a shortage of people willing to execute their fellow citizens, or citizens of neighboring regions (e.g. Darfur or Rwanda).

If you want to be pedantry, yes they're still vulnerable, but not 1/1000th as vulnerable as you and I, and not as vulnerable as their predecessors. Did the SS or CHEKA/NKVD have body-armor, tasers, microwave cannons, tear gas, urban assault vehicles, urban drones, flashbang grenades, claymore mines, fully automatic high-capacity carbine rifles, high-calibre handguns, night vision goggles, etc. etc. etc. at their disposal? No. Didn't stop them from killing their fellow citizens with greatest ease.

They're only vulnerable if anyone if fighting back. Look at history, domestic resistance movements toppled exactly how many fascist, socialist, and communist regimes and on what timescales?

Fedaykinx's picture

you're asking a lot of questions that aren't very relevant to the situation in this country and making inferences that either aren't very realistic or are also irrelevant.

let me ask you a couple of things, respectfully.  do you live in the u.s.?  if so, what sort of geographical area?  have you ever served in the military, or have family members that have served?

knowless's picture

if the US government starts bombing it's own cities then industry ceases, much of the military defects, and local governments/law enforcement stop cooperating... also the dollar no longer exists.


sooo yeah.. civil war time. collapse of empire.


current drone technology is pretty simple.. like.. you could make your own. also, you could position automated turrets that would detect and destroy them, but whatever.

not every american with the capability to engineer and manufacture such technology would be down for the totalitarian rule or genocide of their own people... 

Totentänzerlied's picture

You talk tough, but are ignorant of history. All those peasants who were massacred by their government's militaries though the same thing: "it can't happen to me". Oops, it did.

knowless's picture

have you seen my position on gun rights?


i very fullly think it can happen to me, and so encourage even demographics which would openly slaughter mine to own guns..


wut? are you an american? what sector. i've already divulged mine.

Totentänzerlied's picture

FEMA II. I have not seen your position on gun rights. I'm sure we agree on 90% or more of the details. The issue, for me, is the fantastical belief amongst many that it can't happen here (and here could be anywhere), that if it did happen, the military would desert en masse and come to our rescue, that society would collapse immediately, or that small-arms fire is the biggest of their concerns in such a scenario. These are not historically informed beliefs.

In case I haven't made it clear: kudos to everone who keeps guns for defense purposes. This is not the issue. The issue is that if you think that when governments decide to murder vast swathes of their populations, they don't use all available means and all necessary force, you are sorely mistaken. My point is merely that "available means" has changed radically since the Ottoman massacre of the Algerians in WWI.

knowless's picture

nigger, you ain't seen what i have. i can't put it down. sorry.

corpses in the river.


I have no illusions. i wait for the day i'm tortured. don't say shit about the last sentence.


keep it where it is, yeah, they'l slit your daughters throat. this is war. live.


you can be a pathetic fuck who pretends like your 9 is gonna stop it, or you can know that knowing the men that will hold it off may help you. yay! so like, when they come to put me camp wise, no one wil notice right?..


blood flew through the rivers, and no-one knew it happpened.

knowless's picture

i watched it.



secret_sam's picture

Yeah, but if you think you're important enough to motivate FEDGOV to mobilize drones and AC-130's to spread you around your living room, you're MOST LIKELY doing too much meth.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Alright, bigshot, what's your peashooter gonna do against an M249? Or any other standard US military weapon? Not a fucking lot. You're delusional.

Rogue Trooper's picture

Reading all your posts.  I think you are actually on the side of freedom.  That being said I think you miss a few points that are in favour of at least the .Gov system not having the ability to apply 'tyranny' all their own way.  Sure you cannot stand your ground against a Military unit armed to the teeth with an M249, drones and all the other hi-tech support. They just bring a LAV and let rip with the .25mm bushmaster - and it would be a world of pain.  But the entire current system, infrastructure and support is completely vulnerable.  Installations guarded by a few troops, supply lines that are vast, the operators of drones, logistics personnel and loyal troops all have families and do not ALL live in a Green Zone protected zone with rolling layers of defense.  Even if they did 'protect' those that are deemed loyal, the country side would be impossible to secure and we all know how that worked out in Iraq.

Take one base and grab a few M249's while your there to supplement the bolt-actions you used to provide cover support for the team sent in to cut through the 'fence' and take the goodies.  Make your own 'technical' with what you can find....

Unless they can completely disarm and 'find' all the toys already out there it will be a fuckin' nightmare for TPTB.

Interesting points you have made and thanks for raising them.


RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

If your point is "to stand against the US military is suicide" I agree.

Ever heard of winning the battle yet losing the war?  I am not going to go into the MANY ways to defeat such a military force, but they are not invincible.   Every patriot killed will create 4 more.


Taint Boil's picture



The drones are untouchable but the facilities that control them are not. One bag of sand released in a low earth orbit could theoretically wipe out a lot of shit.