The claim being made by actor Alex Winter, the organizer of the "Tesla Takedown," is that it's a peaceful grassroots movement. And yet it's impossible not to notice that there have been a lot of not very peaceful attacks on cars, charging stations and dealerships which are happening at the same time. Today, Christopher Rufo and David Reaboi have co-written a story for City Journal making the case that this is more than just a coincidence.
A closer look suggests that Tesla is the latest target of an activist and organizing ecosystem that the Left has built over decades. That infrastructure manufactures, amplifies, and strategically uses protests and “direct actions” to force concessions or policy change. These direct actions range from nonviolent (sit-ins or flash mobs) to violent (arson, harassment, or even assassination), all meant to focus attention through the drama of real-world confrontation. The goal is to bypass the normal channels of democratic decision-making, obtaining desired ends through minoritarian pressure campaigns.
Specifically, the authors argue the anti-Tesla effort is using a "diversity of tactics" approach in which peaceful protests provide cover for violent action. This doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is secretly issuing orders to the whole group, only that that left has made diversity of tactics so standard that violence can always be expected wherever "mostly peaceful" protests take place. In any case, there are signs that professional organizers have a hand in the Tesla Takedown.
Each of the nationwide Tesla Takedown protests were scheduled and posted at The Action Network, a progressive for-profit company that provides online tools for left-wing organizing. It promises its customers the tools “to help you capture a moment, rally supporters to your cause, and sustain relationships with activists.” The pricing for these services—which include databases and sign-up forms like the ones Winter described—can run more than $4,000 per month.
The Disruption Project, a Philadelphia-based far-left organizing group, was initially identified as a host or co-sponsor of all the Tesla Takedown’s protests at the Action Network’s event listings. The Project has since been scrubbed from the Action Network’s site, but it still shares an SMS “short code” with Tesla Takedown—a sign of ongoing linkage.
They write that the standard approach for left-wing protest now includes three levels. At the forefront is the peaceful protesters who carry signs and bring their kids to march. Then there is a smaller group that engages in civil disobedience like blocking streets or occupying areas with tents. And finally there is an even smaller group of militants who cross the line into lawbreaking, vandalism and violence to serve the same ends. The militants don't have to be told what to do by the official leadership, they just have to be given space and opportunity to work. Thus the collective gets the benefit of having domestic terrorists push their agenda while still claiming they don't support any violence.
The tell in this case is that the peaceful protesters never directly identify or criticize the actions of the militants.
The Tesla Takedown campaign did not specifically address or denounce the fire bombings or their perpetrators in its statement opposing “violence, vandalism and destruction of property.” As a practical matter, the diversity of tactics framework works only with a commitment to a principle of “non-denunciation,” or refraining from publicly condemning the more militant tactics employed by allied activists. This preserves internal cohesion among activist groups and prevents public-facing activists from having to answer for the crimes committed by their more militant comrades. Such condemnations could also be used to splinter other activists or the Left generally. In this way, the Tesla Takedown leaders could invite escalation without owning it.
Inviting it without owning it is the goal. Publicly they remain an acceptable movement which can never be held responsible for the actions of the militants but privately they believe a diversity of tactics gets things done.
How many times have we seen this in the past decade? We saw it at Occupy where the utopian camps would spontaneously result in a rash of vandalism aimed at banks.
Black Lives Matter protests followed a similar pattern. Families and peaceful protesters during the day would devolve into militants harassing people, riots and arson at night. The former could claim no connection to the latter, but they were effectively working together.
Antifa uses the same approach. They hold marches which move through cities like Portland shadowed by police and at some pre-determined point a subset of the group will start doing damage with hammers or other weapons. Then they try to blend back into the larger crowd and because they can't be identified as individuals they rarely get charged.
We saw this at the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, where the main camp was presented as a virtual utopia of indigenous kindness and sharing. But then the militants would have standoffs with police, burn construction equipment or sabotage parts of the construction.
We saw it with protests in favor of defunding the police. Protests repeatedly turned to vandalism and threats. This was clearly aimed at achieving specific political ends. It was domestic terrorism.
We've seen it in Atlanta where "cop city" activists would hold a "peaceful" occupation or a concert which would then turn into arson costing the construction companies millions or vandalism aimed at banks connected to the project. Then their media friends at Truthout or the Nation would write about how the peaceful group was being mistreated by police and ignore the violence committed by the same militants.
We've seen it in the UK where climate action groups cross the line from extreme civil disobedience to vandalism, coming up with new and stupid ways to make their case.
We've seen it recently on college campuses where the moment the tent cities are in danger of being removed from campus, a splinter group arises and takes over a building, doing significant damage in the process. (Here's another example.) The main group simultaneously denies knowledge or involvement in the obviously pre-planned violence and also demands "amnesty" for those arrested.
We've seen all of this over and over but law enforcement never seems able to keep up. Most of the criminals are never arrested or have their charges dropped with help from like-minded lawyers and, in some cases, DAs.
Ultimately, the anti-Tesla campaign reveals the strategic logic driving modern protest movements. The Left relies on weaponized ambiguity, using its professional flank to draw headlines and its militant wing to impose costs and thereby achieve political objectives.
Because of the campaign’s massive scope, as well as First Amendment constraints, law enforcement and policymakers have been slow to recognize the far-left’s activist ecosystem.
The left suffered a big loss recently which may show the tide is turning. Greenpeace US could be bankrupted by the outcome of a lawsuit which found the group responsible for the illegal activity of activists protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. Here's hoping this outcome can survive legal challenges. It's the only way to shut down this form "diversity of tactics" form of warfare.
