Large crowds attend 'No Kings' rallies against Trump across US
More than 3,200 events were planned in all 50 states, and organisers hoped it would be the largest single-day protest in US history.
Tens of thousands of anti-Trump protesters have been attending "No Kings" rallies on Saturday across the US.
More than 3,200 events were planned in all 50 states, and organisers hoped it would be the biggest single-day protest in US history.
The words provide the unmissable clues - 'planned in all 50 states' and 'organisers'.
The weird but too familiar aspect is that supposedly intelligent and independent people are willing to be organised in this way and are prepared to rally round an infantile slogan as such as 'No Kings'.
'No Kings' is broad-brush, virtue-signalling, fashionable and effortless. It is propaganda, obviously so, but it works. Are demonstrators generally uneasy about the effect such crude propaganda has on them? No, the slogan is not aimed at people who might be uneasy about succumbing to it. It selects them and we may assume that they don't know they have been selected.
It's propaganda and clearly about generating headlines, but it works well enough to do that, as the organisers knew it would.
8 comments:
It's ironic since the US Constitution effectively introduces an elective monarchy, with the monarch given far more power than old George III ever had. So Kings is just what they've been.
You may prefer a system where the monarch is chosen by Act of Parliament or a system where he is elected by the citizens, the illegal immigrants, the computer hackers, and the photocopiers.
But it's just stupid to object to the US King being a King. If they don't like it they should amend the Constitution. Hell's bells, it's not as if the US was the first jurisdiction to elect monarchs.
You never hear of any 'emoting' about 'No Dynasties'. The Adamses. The Lodges. The Tafts. The Roosevelts. The Kennedys. The Bushes and the Clintons.
I wonder why? Or is 'No Kings' such a wonderful slogan that a 'movement' had to be created so that it could be said?
dearieme - yes, people stirred up by this only seem to object when it isn't their King on the constitutional throne, they expect the dice to be loaded in their favour and wave placards when they aren't.
Would they be in favour of a "No Presidents" movement? Possibly they would, but perhaps only until the next election.
DJ - 'No Kings' does come across as little more than a snappy advertising slogan but yes, a 'No Dynasties' movement might reasonably be applied to all elected positions.
But we did pretty well out of Pitt the Younger.
What is it that they object to so much?
Record high employment including of ethnic minorities?
A closed southern border to keep out gangsters, murderers and drug traffickers - or any more?
Making America oil self sufficient?
On shoring of at least some industry?
Possibly saving the west from a maniacal Islamic terror exporting administration at great political disadvantage to himself, viz the midterms?
Who would want a king like that?
dearieme - yes, Pitt the Younger is annoying as he messes up the argument.
Tammly - they seem to object to his successes, being extremely suspicious of rich people who get things done.
"Planned By" organisations funded by George Soros...
Dave - yes, either Soros or one of the other shady funding outfits. There seem to be lots of them.
Post a Comment