I am routinely astonished at the degree of irrational thinking and acting among people who think of themselves as otherwise. They think they are so right. But they are so wrong. These individuals are not necessarily unintelligent, rather they possess a diminished or undeveloped capacity for reason. One mark of this type of person is the substitution for logical argument the practice of sophistry. This is associated with a penchant for putting emotion over logic—and justice.
One recent example of irrationality is displayed by those who accuse those condemning the firebombings of Teslas as hypocrites for not also condemning the boycotts of Bud Light, Target, etc. However, there’s an obvious difference between firebombing Teslas sitting at a car dealership, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, not buying a Tesla. If you don’t like Tesla, then don’t buy a Tesla. Of course. Why you wouldn’t buy a Tesla because you don’t like Elon Musk is beyond me, but people are free not to buy things for whatever reason.
A related example is found among those who cite the case of Kid Rock shooting up a case of Bud Light. Again, there’s a difference between buying a Tesla and blowing it up, on the one hand, and, on the other, blowing up a Tesla that doesn’t belong to you. Same goes for vandalizing a Tesla. It may be absurd to buy a case of beer so you can shoot it full of holes with a semi-automatic weapon, but it’s not the same thing as damaging somebody else’s property.
These attempts at equivalences are so obviously fallacious that one has to be concerned about the state of education in America (and Canada, etc.).
But the more serious issue is what the false equivalences obscure: the problem of propaganda of the deed.
For those of you with good memories, you will recall the waves of similar action targeting Hummers, especially in the early 2000s (although the attacks started in the late 1990s). A group calling itself the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) firebombed and vandalized several vehicles at dealerships. The group claimed responsibility for the arson, protesting the vehicles’ environmental impact. Slashed tires, spray-painted slogans (“No Blood for Oil”), and other forms of vandalism occurred across the United States and in some European countries.
“Propaganda of the deed” is resort to direct, often violent actions, e.g., assassinations, bombings, or sabotage, to inspire or provoke broader political or social change. It was popularized by anarchists in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries who believed that dramatic acts of rebellion or violence would serve as a catalyst for revolution by inspiring the oppressed to rise up, as well as demonstrating the vulnerability of the state to control deviance. The idea was that such deeds would not only attract attention to some cause or another but also motivate others to take action, making violence itself a form of symbolic communication.
Resort to propaganda of the deed is the expression of a personality type. I haven’t conducted any polling on this, but I would expect to find that those who think it’s appropriate to firebomb and vandalize Teslas are more likely to also believe that it is appropriate to vandalize great works of art or block roads to impede motorists trying to get to airports, hospitals, or work. One could also reasonably suppose they are also more likely to celebrate the assassination of a CEO of an insurance company. It’s obvious enough that polling on the matter seems a waste of resources. Just scroll through your X feed.
I’m sure readers are generally familiar with a theory that can be summed up with the saying, “Birds of a feather flock together.” In the 1950s, Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer explored the psychology of mass movements, analyzing why individuals are drawn to them. More to the point, he draws his audience’s attention to the type of person drawn to mass movements. Hoffer finds that individuals who are frustrated with their lives are particularly susceptible to joining mass movements—whether political, religious, or social. In short, misfits. For the misfit, these movements provide an escape from individual insignificance by dissolving personal identity in tribal spirit.
For Hoffer, mass movements attract lost souls seeking belonging, certainty, and purpose. This type of person lacks creativity, self-efficacy, and talent. Hoffer contends that fanatical devotion stems less from ideological conviction and more from the need for personal fulfillment. Ideological conviction follows as a rationalization for passion. Once in the group, the individual observes and apes the attitudes and behavior of those around him, as well as receiving instructions on how to think and act. This is what is behind the mindless chanting. Hoffer examines the shared characteristics of different movements and finds that the underlying psychological appeal is often the same, regardless of specific goals. Thus the misfit moves from cause to cause in search of external purpose.
When you consider the collective attitude of the left today, it’s obvious that people with this personality type have found their flock. This explains why we see the same type moving from Antifa, Black Lives Matter, anti-Israel action, and trans activism, displaying the same obsession over the same prominent figures, such as Donald Trump. Often, today usually, these movements merge into one mass movement. This is how we get the idiocy of “Queers for Palestine.”
The misfit is also the criminal type, rationalizing his criminality by appeal to higher loyalties. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi’s 1990 A General Theory of Crime argues that crime is primarily the result of low self-control, which they describe as an enduring personality trait shaped early in life. According to their thesis, individuals with low self-control are impulsive, risk-seeking, and short-sighted. The saying “birds of a feather flock together” encapsulates their observation that individuals with low self-control tend to cluster together, forming social circles where deviant behavior is normalized and reinforced. The authors claim that low self-control also contributes to poor life outcomes, such as economic struggles and unstable relationships, the profile Hoffer identifies in the “true believer.”
One is tempted to paraphrase Friedrich Nietzsche’s observation that while madness is rare in individuals, it is common in groups. But the madness of the individuals draws them to other mad individuals. The result is what Douglas Murray describes in The Madness of Crowds. There he documents the rise of identity politics and its influence on contemporary culture. Murray argues that the obsession on gender, identity, race, and sexuality has led to a form of ideological extremism, where reason and nuance are sacrificed for rigid dogma. What also goes out the window is respect for individual liberties and rights, replaced by narcissistic obsession with self.
Murray contends that social justice movements, while sometimes initially rooted in legitimate concerns, have become driven by mob mentality and a desire to police thought and speech, not just of the group, but of everybody. It is a fascistic mentality. He observes that this trend is fracturing society, as individuals are differentiated and judged by group identities rather than individual merit. The book critiques the spread of outrage culture and the tendency for public discourse to be dominated by moral absolutism and performative activism. Murray calls for a return to rational debate and individualism. His book was published in 2019. In meantime, the situation has only worsened.
In short, the left has become a mob—and mobs and democracy don’t mix. The mob today is a manifestation of what I have identified in several essays as the New Fascist mentality expressed as such: a group doesn’t like another group of people, so they vandalize the property of that group, and it’s just a short step from there to interpersonal violence. Indeed, examples of leftwing activists assailing individuals over the last several years are abundant. We witnessed acts of intimidation and interpersonal violence with Black Lives Matter (and we will likely see it again). We saw it more recently in the harassment of Jewish students by pro-Hamas activist on college campuses. We see it with trans activists.
Readers have surely heard left wingers insist that speech is violence. The idea that speech can be violence is rooted in the notion that certain forms of speech—what activists describe as dehumanizing rhetoric and hate speech—can cause emotional and psychological comparable to physical violence. Proponents of this view argue that speech can cause distress and fear and trigger trauma, and that this harm carries tangible effects on mental health and well-being.
But if speech is a type of violence, then violence is a type of speech. This creates a dangerous precedent where actual physical violence is justified as a form of expressive protest. It follows that such acts as physical confrontation during protests, rioting, and vandalism are forms of symbolic resistance or speech. They are certainly acts of criminal violence. Clearly, the left has embraced this idea. This development represents a very dark turn in America’s political culture (not that we haven’t been here before).
This trend won’t end well if we permit it to continue. It’s incumbent upon all of those who identify as being on the political left to condemn violent actions by others who associate themselves with left-wing politics. As somebody who has long identified as being on the left, I have long condemned the use of violence as a form of protest and resistance, and even acts short of violence, such as the heckler’s veto. It’s not that violence is never appropriate, but it must be reserved for self-defense, defense of others, and extraordinary situations in which genuine oppression requires rebellion. The misuse of violence has become so bad on today’s left that I can no longer associate myself with that standpoint.
I want a world where I am safe to buy a car without fear of being targeted by those with a warped sense of justice and appropriate action. I have considered buying a Tesla, but I am fearful to do so because of what might happen to my property and even my person and the loved ones around me. This is of course the intent of those who firebomb and vandalize Teslas: to put fear in the hearts of Americans in order to hurt Tesla and Elon Musk. Why? Because he has put his talents to the deconstruction of the big intrusive government in the DOGE project (just as he saved free speech in America by purchasing Twitter).
I have seen a lot of denials on X over the last few days that firebombing and vandalizing of Teslas is not terrorism. However, I am confident that if my readers saw swastikas spray-painted on a Jewish family’s home, they would see it for what it is: an act of domestic terrorism. Terrorism is, after all, the unlawful use of violence and intimidation tactics, especially against civilians, to achieve ideological, political, or religious goals. It typically involves acts intended to create fear, disrupt society, or coerce governments or populations into making concessions or policy changes. Terrorism can take many forms, including assassinations, bombings, and cyber attacks.
A site calling itself “Dogequest” has appeared with a map of Tesla owners so that domestic terrorists can more easily target Teslas for vandalism. Tesla owners are told to either rid themselves of their Teslas or remain on the list and risk having their vehicles vandalized—or worse.
freedom and reason 