Astroturfed ‘No Kings’ Protest Returns to Ohio October 18; Is Destabilization The Goal?
BY JEFF SKINNER
STATEWIDE - Across social media, random posts are cropping up in community groups to advertise the upcoming ‘no kings’ protest, a long-acknowledged astroturfed movement without clearly stated goals which many purport is the goal in itself. Through long-acknowledged documents written by one of the organization's leading funders, the promotion of disorganized chaos is sought to promote a larger agenda.
While the government has been shut down due to a process of checks and balances, negating the concept of the presence of a dictatorial regime operating in the Trump administration, the astroturfed ‘No Kings’ protest has seemingly out of nowhere, cropped up with scheduled marches across the country. Largely propped up by contributions from unions, nonprofits using federal grant money, and organizations like ‘Indivisible’, a left-leaning organization largely funded by Open Society, the George Soros grant distribution foundation. Indivisible plans for multiple protests across the country, including several in Ohio on October 18, 2025.
Many independent voters are asking themselves ‘what the point’ of the protests actually are. The websites advertise a vague connection to the Trump administration arguing he fashions himself a king or dictator, though no evidence of such claims actually exist on the website. Instead the protest seems to promote dissociative chaos for its own sake, which many propose is exactly the point.
The movement's largest director and proprietor, George Soros, is a long standing member of the World Economic Forum and one of the foremost minds behind the concept of the borderless society and ‘rules-based order’ which will define the push for global governance over the next 5 years under what is known as 'Agenda 2030'.
Agenda 2030 seeks to establish a globalized system of control across western nations in which individual rights are contingent on items like social credit systems, enforced through biometric surveillance which would limit mobility in tightly controlled local municipalities or 15-minute cities.
In his earlier writings, namely Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO, Soros wrote that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant a change of purpose for NATO. No more would the organization be about defense against the nationalist policies of the Soviet Regime, but rather the enforcement of ‘open societies’ against ‘close societies’, which he felt would define the future centuries. In short, Soros argued the new purpose of NATO and international governance would be to step in and intervene should governments lean too heavily in the direction of populist (read closed) societal initiatives. The more a nation moves to do things such as enforce its borders and serve its native populations, the more need there would be for NATO intervention under the Responsibility to Protect clause.
“𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒊𝒇 𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑶 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍, 𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒑𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔,” Soros wrote.
Thus over the years, Soros has constructed a well organized infrastructure of nonprofits and businesses which have participated in and facilitated color revolutions through a process of internal destabilization.
A recent example of this would be the NATO intervention in Libya after the successful color revolution, largely funded through multiple shell organizations and corporations tied to Open Society, which ousted Muammar Gaddafi. After fermenting anti-nationalist movements in Libya and facilitating arms trafficking to astroturfed rebel groups, NATO, following the directional framework as outlined in the 1993 essay, intervened during the ensuing power vacuum under the Responsibility to Protect clause, establishing ‘rules-based international order’ into the region, which has been a chaotic nightmare of civil conflict ever since.
Within this framework, it becomes apparent why these largely top-down controlled movements appear aimless and without actual demands outside of ‘hating Trump’. It would also explain why Soros backed judges and officials have historically released violent criminals from prison and pushed for open borders, leading to national instability.
Ultimately, the agenda seems to be destabilization in and of itself as a response to nationalist leanings of the population, which would move the nation into a category of ‘closed society’, and away from the intended direction of the World Economic Forum’s Agenda 2030 globalized governance and population control structures. Other reporting outlets are arguing a large portion of pull on the Democrat side urging them to refuse any Republican attempts at striking budget deals is coming from Soros as well, making the protest part of a larger organized plan.
The Trump administration has vowed to investigate Open Society Foundation and the funding networks of what they called 'left-wing extremism' however, it is evident from Soros writing, the left and right political paradigms are window dressing compared to what he perceives as the greater issue; whether a nation or 'society' is globalized and 'open' or nationalist and 'closed'.
