>>512190148
>it's the technological gap
This is the same retarded argument that the 2nd amendment doesn't matter because the government has tanks and fighter jets.

You can bomb places from the air or shell it with tanks. Then what? Presumably you, as someone in power, want to continue to rule over the plebs? You magically have enough shells for them all. Now you're ruling over corpses and rubble.

Those in power will only want to do things like a show of force. To grab dissidents and throw them in jail. To kill their leaders. So the cattle aren't roused up and continue to be serve rulers and go back to their normal routine. That is easily countered with an insurgency, particularly one that is divided into small cells. Asymmetric warfare. The only known countermeasure to that, that sort of works is where you use the cell structure against it. Where the government creates its own cells (either of retards or agents) that go do things like bomb children instead of proper targets so the cattle will not be so keen to support them. But the real cells can still continue as normal. Still degrade and demoralise.

Why things shifted in the 20th century are two things:
There was a massive disgenic event in Europe, were the brave men who volunteered to fight for their country, who did things like charge a machine gun nest, were killed. In the millions. Then the cowards, who put on a uniform and did some bullshit in the military to get out of risky fighting were treated as heroes and stupid women fucked them and popped out kids.

The other reason is mass media: radio and TV allow the governments to keep the NPC cattle subdued. Instead of going to their local community/town meeting to discuss things like the migrant problem, retards are getting told by the TV that actually everything is fine and racism is the worst evil.

The first reason would've supplied ample amount of men for an insurgency. The second is up for grabs. Why is there a push for more internet controls?