Fighting the Last War

The Historical Context: Defending Against the Last War
History is replete with examples of military leaders who, having faced the harrowing experiences of war, developed strategies and defenses to prevent a repeat of those same horrors. Unfortunately, these preparations often fail to anticipate the innovations and tactics of future conflicts. One of the most notable examples is the Maginot Line, a massive fortification built by France along its border with Germany after World War I.

The Maginot Line was designed to prevent a German invasion by creating an impenetrable barrier – basically the ultimate fortified trench. It was a response to the brutal trench warfare that had defined much of World War I, aiming to protect France from another ground assault. However, this line of defense proved utterly ineffective against Hitler’s blitzkrieg during World War II. The German forces simply bypassed the Maginot Line, invading through Belgium and utilizing fast-moving tanks and aircraft to overwhelm French defenses. The reliance on outdated tactics from the previous war left France vulnerable to a new, more dynamic form of warfare. Paris fell in a matter of weeks.

This phenomenon of "fighting the last war" is not limited to military strategies. It extends into various realms of human endeavor, including social and political movements.

The Evolution of Non-Violent Protests
In the mid-20th century, figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. pioneered non-violent resistance as a powerful tool for social change. Gandhi's leadership in the Indian independence movement and Dr. King's role in the American Civil Rights Movement demonstrated that peaceful protests could effectively challenge oppressive systems and mobilize public support.

Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha—insistence on truth and non-violence—proved instrumental in dismantling British colonial rule in India. Similarly, Dr. King's commitment to non-violent civil disobedience played a crucial role in ending racial segregation and securing civil rights for African Americans.

These historical successes were partly due to the ability of these movements to garner sympathy and support from the broader public, as well as from the media, which played a critical role in highlighting the injustices faced by these communities.

The Modern Challenge: Media Control and Deep Fakes
Today, however, the landscape for non-violent protest has changed dramatically. This is due in large part to the innovative thinking of those in power. They know now how non-violent resistance works. They understand the power of winning the hearts and minds of the media and the public, and there has been a monumental effort at manipulating the media and the public via disinformation.

The Church Committee hearings of 1975 revealed the FBI’s COINTELPRO program where agents had infiltrated political organizations (many non-violent) it deemed dangerous to subvert their effectiveness. These organizations were “dangerous” because they disagreed with some policy or another that the FBI supported. The non-violent movements were new, and the power structure was just learning how to deal with it.

Another finding of the Church Committee was the extent to which the NSA and CIA were engaged in domestic surveillance – reading citizens’ mail, wiretapping, and using other electronic listening devices without proper (or any) authorization – no warrants, no reasonable suspicion, nothing. Decades later Edward Snowden revealed to us all that not only had these practices not stopped, but they had actually increased and grown more sophisticated and effective.

Have the alphabet agencies learned how to diminish the relevance of non-violent protests? Well, think about recent protests. The Occupy Wall Street movement was non-violent and achieved nothing. Pro-Life protesters are non-violent and have achieved little and are now being prosecuted under the FACE act often for spurious reasons.

Modern protest movements face significant challenges, particularly regarding media portrayal and the manipulation of information. Peaceful protests are often denigrated in the press, undermining their legitimacy and impact.

More recent examples include the Canadian trucker protests and the farmers' protests in the Netherlands. Despite being largely peaceful, these movements were frequently portrayed negatively, with media outlets focusing on any incidents of disruption or inconvenience rather than the core issues at hand. This skewed coverage can diminish public sympathy and public support, making it more difficult for these movements to achieve their goals.

Moreover, the advent of deep fakes and sophisticated digital manipulation techniques has introduced a new and dangerous dimension to the struggle for social justice. Deep fakes can create highly convincing but entirely fabricated videos, making it possible to discredit activists by falsely depicting them engaging in criminal or immoral behavior. This technology can be weaponized by those in power to undermine non-violent movements, fabricating evidence that turns public opinion against protesters. We are approaching a time where we will not be able to trust our own eyes and ears unless we were there in person – even then, who knows?

In an era where media can be tightly controlled and manipulated, and where misinformation can be spread rapidly and convincingly, the effectiveness of non-violent protest is in jeopardy. If the Powers That Be choose to target a movement, they have the tools to fabricate damning evidence, such as labeling activists as child molesters or purveyors of child pornography, or worse. This level of character assassination can destroy lives and movements, regardless of the truth. As the saying goes, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” By the time the truth catches up, the public’s attention has moved on to some new outrage or social phenomenon.

Conclusion: The Future of Non-Violent Resistance
Historically, there is nothing rulers fear more than their own populace. Louis XVI, Czar Nicholas II, Charles I, and many more paid the ultimate price for pissing off their subjects. Therefore, populist movements strike fear in not just the rulers but the entire ruling class (politicians, business leaders, corporations and corporate leaders). When the pitchforks and torches are out, all those who provoke the wrath of the crowd are in danger. This is, of course, why they hate Trump so much. He is viewed as the leader of the unyielding mob, and they fear for their own heads (at least figuratively, maybe literally).

As freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to bodily autonomy (like vaccine mandates) come under attack, there is an outcry among many Trump supporters to stand up peacefully. They often cite Dr. King and Gandhi as historical examples of how to protest these government abuses and overreach. The historical success of these non-violent resistance movements offers important lessons. However, the context in which these strategies once thrived has changed. Today's activists must navigate a world where media narratives can be tightly controlled and where digital tools can fabricate reality itself.

The challenge for modern movements including Trump’s MAGA is to adapt to these new realities, finding innovative ways to communicate their messages and maintain credibility in the face of sophisticated disinformation campaigns. While non-violence remains a powerful principle, its practitioners must develop new strategies to counter the evolving tactics of those who seek to maintain the status quo. Only by recognizing and addressing these modern challenges can the spirit of non-violent resistance continue to effect meaningful change in the 21st century.