Tesla Burns, The Left Smirks: Here’s The Proof

TESLA Attacks -- the real motive is obvious

Wes WalkerMarch 27, 2025

0 51 8 minutes read

A month ago, Elon was denounced as a moral monster, a despotic tyrant power-behind-the-throne… this week, with the bomb squad showing up at Tesla showrooms, those same accusers seem baffled as to the cause.

Rules of engagement

Before we crack open this story, let’s take a moment to recall one of the axioms from the left-wing activist ‘bible’ Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals: Rule 4.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

We bring that up because they make a claim about cause-and-effect relating to moral guilt. They’ve locked themselves into that logic and must be measured by it.

What rule have they locked themselves into? Their official opinion of angry rhetoric.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Yes

We have no less of an example than their own denunciations of DJT’s rhetoric to draw from for an answer to that question:

Trump defenders often decry alarmist accounts of his words by saying he’s taken too literally and that much of his heat is made in jest for his supporters. But this is less convincing after Trump became the first president to deny that he lost an election in which he was rejected by voters and after his call for supporters to “fight like hell” on January 6, 2021, was followed by an invasion of the US Capitol.

Trump hasn’t tempered his violent rhetoric since. His verbal and social media assaults on judges, their staff and prosecutors drip with incitement and have provoked fears for the security of his targets. — CNN, Stephen Collinson Nov 2023

They went even further than that. So convinced of the inherent danger in Trump’s language that they cosigned on Merchan’s suspension of Trump’s First Amendment rights:

“Until sentence is imposed, all individuals covered … must continue to perform their lawful duties free from threats, intimidation, harassment and harm,” the judge wrote.
Bragg’s office last week said limits on Trump’s speech about trial witnesses were no longer needed. But they urged Merchan to keep the other restrictions in place, citing safety risks. — Reuters

Leftists cheered the gag.

So far, we’ve got establishment left (including sitting judges) drawing direct causal relationship between words and such themes as incitement, fear, and hazard to safety.

That sets up the rules of the game. Where do things stand now?

Violence against Musk Proxies

From the time Elon made his close connection to DOGE and the Trump admin clear, we have seen a sharp rise in the violent targeting of, in particular, Tesla and its users.

Bondi made three prominent arrests to drive the point home that such acts of violence would be treated as domestic terrorism. We’ve seen cars trashed, stations torched and bombs planted. Tesla owners were given an ultimatum to sell their vehicles ‘or else’.

And then, the bomb squad found incendiary devices (plural) at a showroom in Austin.

Ok, so far we now have an establishment left ‘rule’ connecting words and consequences and we’ve got targeted acts of violence.

Checking in on the ‘words are violence’ crowd:

Moral paragons like the Dems who love to lecture us that words (like pronouns) can ‘hurt’ would lead by example and be doubly careful about words encouraging action that could lead to violence. Wouldn’t they?

Surely we don’t have any examples of media or Democrats encouraging action that targets Trump or Tesla, do we?

We’ve got Tim Walz checking updates on the collapse of Tesla stock. Won’t somebody teach him how to give a convincing mea culpa? Then there’s Jasmine Crockett joining the chorus of voices demanding a ‘Tesla Takedown’ (when she’s not mocking a man in a wheelchair or calling for specific acts of violence against Ted Cruz), others have shown a range of reaction from enthusiastic support and schadenfreude to bored indifference.

Media types are in on it too, MSNBC being the most obvious example. Others have registered their disgust for Tesla in more traditional forms of protest — by publicly denouncing the brand and selling or giving away the product, endorsing another brand in its place.

Now we’ve added moral support to the criminal action. Interesting. Perhaps they’ll be playing the ‘violent but mostly peaceful card next.

Are these REALLY attacks against TESLA, though?

No. Of course not.

Until Elon had his own ‘golden elevator’ moment with the Trump campaign, or rather, before he rescued Twitter from the thought police, he and his products were darlings of the left. He even vote Biden in 2020.

Elon went rogue.

But in breaking with the liberal hivemind, Elon became The Enemy.

Worse — DOGE is busy slashing slush funds. Political piggy banks and political machines are feeling the pain. Somebody has to pay.

This is looking more and more like an out-of-the-box application of ANOTHER of Alinsky’s rules:

“Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.”

Elon IS the corporation, so it’s not a violation of Rule 11 to attack the corporation… especially if his personal wealth is tied to that corporation.

What about personal attacks against Elon?

Politico’s Michael Schaeffer was rallying the troops for such a fight days before the election: Democrats Have a Weapon to Use Against Elon Musk. Why Won’t They Use It? He was literally calling for the ‘othering’ of Elon as a foreigner born in South Africa (wink-wink-nod-nod). Those racist-y South Africa references have resonated among even elected Democrats trying to smear him as somehow connected to Apartheid.

Others haven’t even bothered to be so subtle, invoking words like ‘tyrant’ or ‘NAZI’ not as an allegation, but as incontrovertible fact… especially when claiming the action where he touched his heart and waved his arm to the crowd while saying his heart goes out to them was assumed to be NAZI, but legion examples of famous libs making an almost identical movement were studiously ignored.

The activist left has always LOVED calling Republicans and their supporters NAZIs. (Remember BusHitler?) Surely tagging someone with the label ‘NAZI’ can’t have any serious repercussions, could it?

Actually, it can. For the people slinging those accusations, Elon has had enough.

Those loudmouths had better bring receipts to back up those allegations because Elon is getting ready to take them for every penny they’ve ever earned. (link)

Celebrating violence

Sure they CALL people NAZIS, but what have the militant left ever DONE to the people tagged with that monker?

For starters, Richard Spencer was sucker-punched on live TV just after Trump’s first inauguration. By a passer-by.

Don Lemon defended Antifa violence on live TV because it was supposedly Anti-NAZI. (It’s right there in the name!) Chris Cuomo wondered aloud in his monologue whoever said that protests were supposed to be peaceful? (Gee, Chris, how about the Constitution?)

The left has embraced an explicit permission structure for attacking very bad people from the approved enemies list, a list that changes as often as the protests change their public faces, but whose look and tactics seem to show a through-line,.

Like Cassablanca’s ‘usual suspects’, we already know the players in this drama.

The suckers carrying the water for the movement may come and go, but the movement remains the same. We’ve had Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, BLM, Jane’s Revenge, BAMN. You could throw in niche causes like environment, sexual identity, abortion, or (more recently) Hamas Sympathizers to round out the list.

There’s ample evidence that figureheads on the political left — across both elected and media establishments — are comfortable looking the other way while street-level violence just happens to coincide with their political objectives. (But let granny stand on the grass outside of the Capitol one cold day in January, and that’s another story.)

Of course they embrace violence. We have literal smoking-gun examples of exactly that.

Why else would leftists be hailing as a ‘hero’ the guy they call Luigi, BECAUSE they believe he shot a stranger in the back? They consider that murder ‘justified’ BECAUSE he was the CEO of an insurance company. Is it relevant that the coward never even did business with said company? Of course not.

If shooting a man in cold blood can be justified, how much more can they justify the firebombing of a corporation that has been designated as a valid target? (And the ‘evil collaborators’ who dare to drive their product.)

And Tesla drivers know where the violence is coming from. Just look at the language they use to appease the mob:

“Bought in 2020″ ‘We Stand with BGBTQ+”

They’re not exactly issuing an urgent appeal to mercy from the radical right, are they?

Final thought

To recap what we’ve got so far, we have Rule 4 telling us that the Establishment Left needs to be held up to its own rules.

Those rules, in the past, have been that acts of violence can and should be attributed to individuals who have, by their words, encouraged them.

We have a growing body of specific examples of physical violence targeting Tesla — a company that is both owned in large part by Elon Musk, but whose brand has been as closely connected to Tesla as, say Steve Jobs was to Apple or Bill Gates was to Microsoft.

If not celebrating the violence, many are thrilled about the financial pain in Tesla’s share price. (Forget the toll that will take on, say, pension plans of blue-collar workers so long as Elon suffers, right?)

A street-level militant arm of the left has been happy to take up the role of instigators of political violence, as a means to an end. The establishment left has either ignored and downplayed their presence (Antifa), or justified it (BLM and Environmentalism) as part of the greater good. (Remember CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle?)

Better yet, we have at least SOME evidence this is NOT a grassroots movement. One of the groups that may have been funding this movement has been furiously scrubbing the internet. (Link to the image below here.)

A group (‘Indivisible’) being liked to the funding of these protests suddenly scrubbing their internet presence AFTER the DOJ made it clear this violence will be treated as terrorism, eh? Interesting.

That doesn’t seem sketchy at all.

If we take the left’s own rules at face value (including the judge whose gag order on Trump they once celebrated), here’s what we’re left with.

Everyone who participates in the violence, gives words of encouragement, gives public moral approbation, or (especially) bankrolls the behavior… Is a participant in the behavior.

Suppose we take the establishment at their word.

Making them play by their own rules, the one remaining question is: Who needs to lawyer up?

Cross-posted with Clash Daily

Make social media great again! After years of government-sanctioned, taxpayer-subsidized censorship, free speech and a free press are coming back, much to the chagrin of freedom-hating totalitarian leftists everywhere. Progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. Follow our NEW Facebook page here and help spread the word. You can also check out our MeWe page here, follow us on Gab, Truth Social, Twitter, and at the social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

Bookmark this site, sign up for our newsletter, check back often, and feel free to contact us here with tips or comments.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views: