No Kings 2 is being organized by a big tent of grassroots and advocacy organizations. One of the most prominent players is Indivisible, the activist group that sprang to life in the early days of the first Trump administration, and which now counts 2,500 distributed, local chapters nationwide.
Rolling Stone spoke to Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin last week, in advance of No Kings 2 unveiling today. The protest is planned for Oct. 18 — in the aftermath of an unpredictable showdown over government funding that could lead to a partial government shutdown by the end of the month.
I expect No Kings 2 to be the largest protest of the year. We had 5 to 6 million people across 2,169 communities turn out for No Kings 1. It was wildly successful. People who might have been on the sidelines for No Kings 1 probably had some FOMO. And the good news is: We’re doing it again. We’re going to pull out even more people.
Let’s go. People are pissed everywhere. In the US. In argentina. In france. In serbia. We’re all in this together
Awesome. Now they can ignore us a second time!
Remember when they occupied minneapolis? That america i can get behind
No i don’t remember
If it’s going to be a single day protest where people gold up some sign, then yes, it will be completely ignored. It doesn’t matter if you get 10 million people show up.
Nobody remembers Kingsday 1 and the people that matter are too busy tonguing Trump’s ass.
You need to protest all day, every day, until trump is gone, if you want to do it peaceful. It has to be a protest that cannot be ignored. Just another protest say won’t do shit, just like the previous one and the one before
The real problem is that honestly would prob only have an impact in DC and getting enough people able to do that to actually do that is rough.
Between distance in the US and people generally being economically on the edge it’s tough.
When you say “us,” what do you mean? Which protests did you attend or what have you been doing to fight this administration?
Yawn. Nothing will come of peaceful protests.
People protests are the start. People who protest peacefully will be more inclined to occupy and take the space later.
You can’t ask family and elderies to riot. There’s a dialectic between violent struggle and peaceful protest. They protect / empowers each other.
People protests are the start. People who protest peacefully will be more inclined to occupy and take the space later.
When, exactly? The clock is ticking.
Then do something yourself instead of telling others they should do what you don’t have the balls to do.
Otherwise you look like a foreign actor trying to incite violence.
If you actually believed what you say I’d be reading about your actions not your feelings.
Peaceful protests are the way we got nearly all the liberties they are taking from us. Yawning is the way we’re losing them.
Peaceful protests are the way we got nearly all the liberties they are taking from us.
Examples?
Most people dont realize almost every peaceful protest that got us where we are today was also backed up by lots of violence.
There’s a lot that cannot be quantified directly from bringing visibility to an issue. I’m not arguing against other tactics just that peaceful protests are not useless. The Trump administration wants a violent reaction to jumpstart everything on their list through martial law.
There’s a lot that cannot be quantified directly from bringing visibility to an issue.
Sure, but then what? Visibility has already been brought, so tactics whose selling point is bringing visibility have clearly outlived their usefulness.
The Trump administration wants a violent reaction to jumpstart everything on their list through martial law.
As opposed to what, exactly? To be clear the stuff Gandhi or MLK were doing would be enough of an excuse for Trump to impose martial law if done today. Effective resistance will beget violent repression by virtue of its effectiveness.
Not just visibility. The confidence that comes from solidarity. From infusing the passion of others in yourself. Watching the courage of the ones before is the kind of thing that inspired the leaders we have today. Not even just the passive ones.
To your second comment, how can a campaign to clean up so-called “violence in cities” continue to produce effective propaganda without the clips of violence or looting or property damage? Do you think the National Guard picking up trash in DC for nothing better to do or guardspeople sleeping on floors is effective?
The thing is, if there were outlets to report the people fighting back, throwing bricks against unprovoked police attacks, there would be a lot more to gain from violence. Unfortunately, there’s virtually no outlet at this point that wouldn’t write the narrative from Trump’s lips in the case of violence against military/police regardless if it was warranted.
Not just visibility. The confidence that comes from solidarity. From infusing the passion of others in yourself.
Sure. Still, then what?
To your second comment, how can a campaign to clean up so-called “violence in cities” continue to produce effective propaganda without the clips of violence or looting or property damage?
In no particular order: use image from past protests, overblow isolated incidents, lie without evidence and use false flag operations.
The thing is, if there were outlets to report the people fighting back, throwing bricks against unprovoked police attacks, there would be a lot more to gain from violence.
Not that I’m convinced (in the worst cade scenario, social media is always available), but let’s accept this narrative for a second. Then what? What do you believe should be done about it? What’s your victory plan?
MLK March on Washington - civil rights legislation
Montgomery bus boycott - desegregation
Women’s suffrage - equal rights to political participation
Delano Grape boycott - ending many exploits and abused of farm workers and new unions
Singing Revolution - helped lead some Baltic states out of USSR
Salt March - helped lead to Indian independence from Britain
Let’s go through this one by one.
What about the rest of the civil rights movement? The struggle for civil rights involved dozens if not hundreds of groups both peaceful and violent, and all of them contributed to the eventual success/“success” of the movement. Also I should note that desegregation was gained via a court case, not (just) protest. For one prominent instance of violence in the civil rights movement, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots
Women’s suffrage in America was for the most part peaceful, but it was also not something the elites had any reason to oppose. This is an apples to oranges comparison. In Britain, where the elites were more intent on resisting women’s suffrage, things got pretty gnarly.
Ths Delano Grape Strike (not boycott) is not relevant due to the government not being involved one way or the other. Also note that the reason the strike remained mostly peaceful was because the (very much violent) labor rights movement had given them the right to not be shot by private militias. The violence necessary for the strike to succeed had simply been outsourced to the past.
Weren’t we talking about American liberties here?
See above, but also the Indian independence movement was kickstarted by a violent uprising.
So “most” was incorrect on my part. Litigation and legislation play big parts. I’m not ignoring that physically fighting back has played its part. My point was to not to throw peaceful protests under the bus.
The Delano Grape Strike is perfectly relevant. Who cares if it’s against a brutal government or a brutal corporation?
My point was to not to throw peaceful protests under the bus.
I’m not; I’m throwing peaceful parades under the bus. Effective peaceful protests need to disrupt authoritarianism and directly challenge the regime’s authority. I won’t deny the effectiveness of tactics such as those used by Gandhi or MLK, but I see none of that happening in America.
Who cares if it’s against a brutal government or a brutal corporation?
One is able to use near-unfettered violence to achieve its aims while the other can’t; that’s a big difference. Also you can boycott one but not the other (unless you’re willing to back up your boycott using violence, due to the prior point).
Yes. And it’s the way we lost them again. The same tired tactics don’t work. We cannot just do the same thing we always did and expect it to work out fine. Look around Not a single protest has done anything to change anything or even suggest the changing of anything in the last six months. And if it , the Supreme Court shot it down.
Every single thing we get back we are going to lose again the moment the Supreme Court gets Hold of it
You’re not wrong but that’s all that most people can(will) do. 10 million is an enormous outpouring.
The game has changed since the large media outlets are on the take hiding our efforts. That doesn’t mean we can’t change tactics too but it’s not like the peaceful protesters of the past didn’t have the cards stacked against them too. If you have the courage and wits to lead in more effective ways of fighting I support you.
Do not split and no cracks. You don’t have to agree with how they are fighting the system, but keep your thoughts private and instead, explain how your system is awesome.
But what is happening in Hong Kong is they come up with a slogan, which is translated as Do Not Split, which is, we know that some people are willing to be confrontational with riot police.
And when they are, that’s going to cost the state in terms of not only resources, but it’s going to cost the state in terms of political capital and support. And we know that there are some people who are not willing to do that. And we are going to abide by the protocol of Do Not Split, which means that we’re not going to criticize them openly, and they’re not going to criticize us openly.
If we’re the pacifists, we’re not going to have them criticize us for being sort of like, I don’t know, limpid or flaccid or not courageous or whatever. And we’re not going to criticize them for being more confrontational. And the thing is that the support is also tacit.
I’m sorry, but I cannot take political advice based on tactics that have failed in China.
Those tactics worked in tunisia to fight ben ali. My wife was there and they weren’t shooting blanks.
So, if the LA protestors has gotten violent with the national guard, what do you think would have happened?
I don’t think they should get violent with the police (or national guard), so I won’t even entertain that concept.
So what are your thoughts on how all of this should be handled? You’re responding to me saying to OP to incite violence instead of peaceful protest. I’m getting sick of trolls, and it seems like you’re trolling.
I’m not trying to troll you at all, but I believe that you are trying to get me to break the rules so that you can ban me. You aren’t interested in what I think, you are interested in a justified ban.
Dude, you don’t have to do anything else to ban you. I’m just curious if you had anything to say before I do it.
deleted by creator
