No, passive aggression relies entirely upon using people's morals agaisnt them. It will not work agianst people with no morals. We have already seen how they deal with civil disobediance during the Janurary 6th protest: fals lfag attacks and criminalizing some skape goats to paint the whole movement as evil.
...this misunderstands how the Left views itself, and misunderstands why MLK's tactics can work on the ones who aren't proudly Marxists.
Use nothing more than factual history it is possible to completely gut the Left's narratives, if this is done with MLK like tactics against discrimination and abuse of non-Marxist political views, mixed with good helping of current events based renewed dislike for anything Russian.
The worst of the Left's ideology these days is mostly the result of long term Soviet psy-ops and abiding leftist enablers in DC, most of us here know this already, and this is the message that must be shout out along with the civil disobedience when the Right is discriminated against.
Use the real and existing ties between the Left and Russian/Soviet psy-ops in western academia, along with the stuff that came out after the Wall fell from ex-KGB guys about this subject and teh existing ties to the CCP to destroy the Marxist left using nationalist fervor, backed up by MLK-like disobedience against any Marxist laws or decrees from the Far-Left or their leaders.
The Left count on people not knowing about progressivisms ties to Soviet psy-ops to get away with a lot of the shit they do; time for that to change. Only when the population at large is aware of this and it's implications will the Left truly start lossing ground, because tying the Left to Soviet psy-ops and Russia/Putin can absolutely help destroy teh modern Left in ways it cannot dodge easily.
'X has nothing to do with Christianity, just the foundational mythos that was built on Christian philosophy and ethics.'
The ethics Christianity claims to be the source of are older than it, like by thousands of years in most cases. It's reskinned them and adopted them as their own, but many 'Christain' morals are older and more widespread then the Judaeo-Christian groups themselves.
Christianity didn't really do anything new ethics wise, it just added a martyr/prophet story as the 'capstone'. The ethics it sprouted from within the Jewish people are sourced even older than that to Hammurabi and his peer and forebearers, along with a not insignificant Greek and Egyptian influence. And there's questions of the Phoenicians and Mycenaeans, and their forebearers. Of Ur's forebearers.
Almost all of the morals and ethics Christians often believe originate from their culture or the Jewish culture are older than those cultures, and not unique to the Judaeo-Christian groups.
Take Sikhs, Hindu's, Shinto's, Buddhists, even Druids or Druze; are they without morals, and not part of the equation because America is a 'Christian nation'?
This is where the idea that MLK only succeeded because the US is a 'Christian nation' fails; it discounts the morals and world views of every other person in the US who supported the Civil Rights movement and yet was not part of the Judaeo-Christian family of faiths.