I agree with the thesis of the video. The missing ingredient, leadership, is both missing and also prevented from forming bottom-up because the "leaders" in positions of opposition power - Jefferies, Schumer, etc - are just taking up space, issuing statements and doing nothing to organize meaningful opposition. These "leaders" need to step up or step down.
But apart from that, I mean, I'm struggling to see the lesson for what it means for people on the ground. I debated with others many times here about guns/violence, and just to get it out of the way, I still do not think it benefits anyone to violently engage ICE. ICE has the federal government's monopoly on violence and is aching to wield it. I've seen zero cases of protestor-initiated violence, but one case of clear violence started (even justifiably) from the protestors will be used for exponentially more indiscriminate brutality than whatever we gain, because they don't view us as human and have no fear of prosecution. Their disinformation machine, helped by Russian bots and astroturf influencers, will amplify it a million-fold and could manufacture the consent they need.
But at least, should protestors be armed? I thought that protesting while legally armed would dissuade ICE. But Alex Pretti was legally armed and was murdered, just like Renee Good was murdered while not armed.
The only plausible non-violent tactic, beyond protesting and hoping, is an indefinite general strike. It doesn't need to last long, and likely wouldn't need to, but it just has to be organized well enough to be clearly sustainable indefinitely.
Are any leaders anywhere planning that? I have heard zilch.