By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Political consultant Rick Wilson’s X account was suspended following the publication of his article, “Kill Tesla, Save the Country,” and subsequent announcements of a plan to undermine Elon Musk and Tesla. Wilson claims his intention was not to incite violence but rather to utilize market forces—boycotts, lawsuits, and withdrawal of subsidies—to damage Tesla’s brand and thereby weaken Musk’s influence. He frames this as a necessary action to counter Musk’s support of Donald Trump and their perceived threat to democracy. Wilson likened X’s current state to a platform overrun by Nazi ideology, further justifying his departure.
Read the original article here
Rick Wilson, having been booted from Twitter, has unveiled a comprehensive plan aimed at dismantling Elon Musk’s empire. His strategy, bluntly summarized as “Break Tesla, break Elon,” focuses on leveraging market forces and legal avenues to undermine Musk’s business ventures.
The core of Wilson’s plan centers on encouraging consumers to actively boycott Tesla vehicles in favor of competing electric vehicle brands. He highlights the availability of comparable, and in many cases superior, EVs from manufacturers like Rivian, Polestar, and numerous established automakers who now offer electric options. The idea is to flood the market with viable alternatives, directly impacting Tesla’s market share and profitability.
Beyond consumer choice, Wilson proposes a multifaceted approach incorporating public relations and legal strategies. He advocates for relentlessly linking Musk’s controversial actions and personal brand to Tesla, effectively tarnishing the company’s image and making it harder for Tesla to recover from negative publicity. This involves actively highlighting Musk’s erratic behavior and tying his public persona to the Tesla brand in all forms of media.
The plan also includes initiating costly shareholder lawsuits. These lawsuits, while expensive, are envisioned as a means to expose internal documents and depositions, thereby potentially damaging Tesla’s reputation and draining resources. The legal challenges could create long-term financial strain and hinder the company’s growth trajectory.
Another crucial element focuses on curtailing government support for Tesla. Wilson suggests pressuring state and federal agencies in blue states, as well as the EU, to withdraw subsidies and government contracts currently benefiting the electric vehicle manufacturer. Reducing or eliminating these financial advantages would directly impact Tesla’s bottom line and competitiveness.
Additionally, Wilson calls for divestment from Tesla by public funds. He encourages state pension systems and municipal treasuries to sell off their Tesla stock, further impacting the company’s financial stability and signaling a broader lack of confidence in the company’s future. This coordinated action across multiple sectors aims to create a domino effect, weakening Tesla’s position and, consequently, Musk’s influence.
The overarching goal, according to Wilson, is not to bankrupt Musk, but to significantly hamper his ability to fund politically motivated initiatives and disruptive behaviors. By weakening Tesla, the argument goes, Musk’s financial resources would be curtailed, limiting his capacity to interfere in political processes and undermine democratic norms. This strategy represents a calculated attempt to leverage market forces and legal means to counter Musk’s influence, framing the effort as a fight to safeguard democratic values. The feasibility and ethical implications of such a strategy, however, remain open to debate. While some applaud the initiative, others question its effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. The long-term impact of this strategy and its ethical considerations remain a subject of ongoing discussion.