I read the BBC article your link cited.

A couple of really telling points.

• "Numbers really matter for building power in ways that can really pose a serious challenge or threat to entrenched authorities or occupations,”

What it doesn’t say is what happens when support against regime change is >50%. 2/3rd of the US population through either direct support (voted for) or indirect support (couldn’t care to vote), put a convicted criminal racist rapist who was very clear what he was going to do, in power.

• No mention of foreign backed influence campaigns

How many of those non-violent campaigns had foreign intelligence support for them, and how many against? The CIA, FSB (KGB) and many others had their fingerprints all over so many of those. Certainly today, we know without a doubt that Trump has been and likely still is supported by the FSB. And yet, not a disqualifier.

• The study considered a successful non-violent protest, only if it resolved in under a year

People have been protesting so long against him that some people who were in diapers when he announced his intentions to run, will be old enough to vote in the next election. If there is one.

• The scope of the study is poor

As a historical study, it’s great. But in terms of analyzing the current modern state, nothing older than 20 years should be considered. Technology has changed the game so much that comparing the world of today to the world of pre-2000 is useless. 20 years may even be too much.

Twitter helped overthrow the Egyptian regime, but today is owned by one of the people running the regime.

While the scope is too wide, it’s also too narrow because it only goes back to 1900. It misses some very important events.

• French Revolution
• American Revolution
• The Haitian Revolution
• The War of Mexican Independence
• Many revolutions in a 20 year period in Central and South America
• The Belgian Revolution

There is more, and I kept the scope for the same approximate period of time as the study did.

What’s important to note here, is the study looked at a post WW1 world where the League of Nations and the UN provided a place to air a countries dirty laundry and organize counters against them like public shaming and sanctions. A large part of the success being the support of the United States. Today, the US is actively dismantling the institutions that kept the world from needing violence for positive change.

It also excludes regime changes using foreign military support. So no;

• Mexican Revolution
• Bolshevik Revolution
• Guatemala
• Congo
• Iran
• Vietnam
• And many more

And the most important example, because it has the most significance to today…

• WW2, where the world’s most militarily powerful nation, elected a racist, fascist, speed addicted dictator, who used tight control of the information sources to push an evil agenda that destabilized the world and led to the deaths of millions. A regime incidentally, that saw mass protests. But to paraphrase myself, they really did fuck all.

So here I sit in 1937 Poland, listening to the Orange Oberbefehlshaber talk about how all of the countries around are taking advantage of them, and how large sections of the population of those countries support him, and how Vichy Alberta wants to join them…

How many fucks do you think I’ll give about protests against him when US tanks are rolling down my street.