The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Latest Tourist Trap in the United States: ICE Detention Centers

Visitors held and detained at US borders due to increased anti-immigration enforcement overwhelming detention system


18/04/2025

In March, Rebecca Burke’s trip to the United States and Canada took a dark turn. The Welsh artist planned to travel in the northwest USA and Canada for less through Workaway, a site which pairs volunteers with organizations and private individuals offering lodging. When Burke arrived at the Canadian border with her tourism visa, officials determined that her volunteer activities constituted housing in exchange for labor. They sent her back to the US saying that she must apply for a working visa there. Back in the US, she was labelled an illegal alien and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Burke had not been closely following US immigration politics before her trip, but since seeing the inside of a detention center, she is committed to sharing the stories of the many who are still detained. Human rights organizations have decried the mistreatment and living conditions of detainees since the inception of ICE in the 2000s. However, due to new detention and deportation enforcement goals set by the Trump administration, ICE has expanded their criteria for whom to detain. Instead of searching for and arresting individuals with criminal records or non-legal immigration status––which could require up to 6 officers to carry out––ICE is now detaining anyone without permanent US citizenship and asking questions later. Their methods include racially profiling potential immigrants on the street, denying visa renewals and immediately detaining the applicants, and questioning arriving travellers at airport customs. The result is a higher rate of detentions and packed detention centers.

This new process has consequences for many demographics, from asylum seekers to current green card and visa holders. It also seems to be affecting even those who have no intentions of staying: tourists. In the cases where reasons for detention were given, these reasons vary, although some emerging trends for why someone might be flagged as suspicious include political dissent, previous visa or legal problems (even those that have been resolved), crossing of the Mexican or Canadian border, and perceived intent to work on the wrong visa. In some cases the visitors were simply detained for 24 hours. Others, who were not so luckily, were imediately detained in ICE detention centers without opportunity to speak to a lawyer or buy a flight home

Further details on several prominent cases:

Case: Political dissent; time detained 24 hours. On March 9th, a french space researcher (who prefers to remain anonymous) arrived in Houston, Texas to attend a scientific conference. His personal phone and computer were searched and then confiscated at US customs. The scientist was critiqued for having messages “that convey hatred towards Trump and can be described as terrorism,” and even threatened with an FBI investigation, according to the l’Agence France-Presse (AFP). He was then banned from entering the United States and sent home the next day. The spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security denies that the researcher’s removal was related to political beliefs. According to her, the scientist had confidential information from Los Alamos National Laboratory on his device. The case has made international news and garnered strong critique from French government officials and educational insitutions. Several scientific institutions in France now recommend that researchers only travel to the US with devices that have been wiped of personal information.

Case: travel across Mexico border; time detained 16 days. Lucas Sielaff, a German tourist, was visiting his fiancée in California. The couple crossed the border to Mexico in order to treat their sick dog at a cheaper vet. Upon their return, a border guard became suspicious that Sielaff was intending to live illegally in the US despite him still being within the 30 days of his allowed stay. He was detained for almost 2 weeks in a detention cell with 128 other men before being allowed to buy a flight home.

Case: perceived intent to work; time detained 6 weeks. On January 15th, German tattoo artist Jessica Bröche was detained at the US-Mexico border because she mentioned that she would give her friend a tattoo upon arriving in California. The border guards interpreted this as intent to work on a tourist visa. Her friend maintains that it was meant to be an artistic exchange. Despite her case making international headlines she was not allowed to return to Germany until mid-March. Her detention included 8 days of solitary confinement.

These are only a few of the cases which made the news. Other stories of detentions and 24 hour holds include that of Fabian Schmidt, Celine Flad (Germany), Jasmine Mooney (Canada), and Rebecca Burke.

Both Burke and Mooney experienced unnanounced periods of waiting; stays in prison-style holding cells with more than 10 other detainees; questionable sanitation standards; and inadequate provisions for comfort, including lack of pillows and sheets, meager food, and constant fluorescent lighting. Neither was given the option to consult a lawyer, buy a flight, or receive answers as to how long they would stay in detainment.

Mooney emphasized at the end of her interview with the Guardian that she is against illegal immigration, but believes that the ICE detention system should be more fair to people who actually want to leave the country or to stay in the country lawfully. At the same time, Mooney points out the connection to the profit motives behind the detention centers. While ICE is a government agency, the detention centers used by ICE are in fact run by private companies, and receives government funding based on number of detainees. Thus, the companies lobby the government for harsher immigration laws. Not only does this reinforce a vicious cycle, but it would seem to also be overwhelming the system itself.

Even if ICE detention centers were not morally compromised by profit, is there a way that immigration detentions could be more “fair”––i.e., not affect legal immigrants and tourists? According to the ACLU, US citizens and permanent residents do not legally have to answer questions about religion or politics or provide passwords for personal devices in order to enter the country. However non-US citizens do not have this right. Thus, it is completely legal for ICE to detain anyone who is not a US citizen or permanent resident without giving a reason. In a system where any non-US citizen or permanent resident is potentially an illegal immigrant, illegal immigration could be immigration without the right papers, immigration with the wrong information on your phone, immigration with an unconventional itinerary, or even immigration while trans, nonbinary, or intersex.

Most of the tourists mentioned in this article are home now. Most were only detained a few weeks thanks to making national headlines in their home countries. The day after Burke’s father told her story on a news show in the UK, an ICE agent approached her to inform her that she was now being prioritized for being processed. She was released and sent home 4 days later. However, most detainees are not tourists and do not receive nationwide attention. Many could not afford a lawyer or do not qualify for the pro-bono lawyers who only represent asylum seekers. Some have been waiting for months or years in temporary holding facilities. The horrid conditions at ICE detention centers are old news in the US and around the world. But now, with renewed interest from the tourist cases, perhaps it will become more apparent that an injustice for some will sooner or later affect us all.

Further reading:

Irish citizen detained by Berliner Polizei outside Irish Embassy for speaking Irish

Statement by the Irish Bloc


17/04/2025

Irish Embassy Berlin, Jägerstraße 51, 10117 Berlin

On the morning of Wednesday the 16th of April, 2025, from 11:00 to 13:00, a group of protesters—primarily made up of Irish citizens living in Berlin—gathered outside the Embassy of Ireland, Berlin, to hold a registered protest.

The demonstration, titled ‘Ireland’s Complicit!’, was purposed to, among other things, demand the passing of the Occupied Territories Bill in Ireland and a stop to the use of Shannon Airport and Irish airspace for the transport of munitions to Israel for use in the genocide in Palestine, and to decry both the Irish state and the Embassy’s lack of support for the two Irish citizens being deported from Germany for their solidarity with Palestine.

The demonstration, attended by some 30 to 40 people, had been registered with the Berliner Polizei three days prior, as is standard practice for Berlin demonstrations. The organisers of the demonstration informed the Polizei that the demonstration would be held partially in Irish.

The Polizei have, over the past eighteen months of genocide, repeatedly banned the Arabic language, and other languages, from being spoken at demonstrations in Berlin, home to the largest Palestinian diaspora in Europe. Hence, it has become de facto necessary to confirm with Polizei which languages may be used at demonstrations. The Polizei instructed that a decision on the permissibility of the Irish language would be included within upcoming documentation.

On Tuesday the 15th of April, the demonstration’s official Auflage—a document describing the demonstration’s nature and any related restrictions—was issued to the person who registered the demonstration. No mention of the Irish language, or of other languages, was made—normally meaning Irish and other languages would be permitted.

On the day of the demonstration, at 10:45, just as the demonstration was about to begin, the Polizei verbally informed the demonstration organisers that the Irish language would be banned until the Polizei could find an interpreter of the language​​​​​​​.

Learning this, the demonstration organisers cancelled a planned Irish-language speech. The Polizei also later insisted that they needed to see the demonstration’s music playlist so to inspect their lyrics. It was verbally stated that Arabic music would not be allowed to be played. It was further stated that the lyrics of the songs would have to be inspected for references to bodies of water.

The demonstration began at 11:00. Throughout, casual and colloquial use of the Irish language was naturally present in the speech patterns of the attending Irish protesters, who nevertheless were still speaking in English. Members of the Polizei approached protesters on several occasions and informed the speakers that the Irish language was not allowed to be spoken during the demonstration.

At 12:00, with no interpreter having been found by the Polizei, the demonstration organisers requested written confirmation of the language ban, so that legal objections could be raised to the arbitrary ban. Written confirmation was denied to them. At 12:30, organisers spoke to the director of the unit present at the demonstration, who admitted that there was a failure in communication on the side of the Polizei. When organisers asked what they could have done differently, to avoid this from happening again, she replied that there was nothing they could have done differently. Regardless, the language ban was upheld.

Two of the protestors that had gathered signatures on a letter addressed to the Irish Ambassador to Germany, Maeve Collins, were initially denied entry to the Embassy by the Berliner Polizei. The letter detailed a list of demands to the Irish government, including the following:

  • Stop selling Israeli war bonds via the Central Bank of Ireland.
  • End dual-use military trade with Israel.
  • Stop the illegal use of Irish airspace and Shannon Airport as a waypoint for arms trafficking from the US and other allies of Israel, including Germany. This is in violation of EU laws, the Chicago Convention and Ireland’s own domestic laws.
  • Pass the Occupied Territories Bill immediately, in its full and original form.
  • Reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism, shamefully adopted by Ireland in January, in favour of the definition outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism.
  • Stop the police brutality against protestors. Immediately conduct an investigation into An Garda Síochána for racialised, gendered and sexual abuse.
  • Intervene in Germany’s deportation of Irish citizens.

One of the Polizei agreed to ask the Embassy if they would send somebody outside to collect the letter. The Embassy refused.  

An organiser of the demonstration then made a phone call to the Embassy, and they, after some time, agreed that two protesters could enter and hand-deliver the letter. This prioritisation of the Berliner Polizei over the Irish Embassy’s own citizens is contrary to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. At 12:45, the two Irish citizens were escorted by two members of the Polizei to hand the letter to the receptionist of the Embassy.

Speeches, songs, and chants continued in English. Finally, at 13:00 just as the demonstration was ending, an Irish citizen leading English-language chants gave a coda with the phrases ‘Lámha as an Phalastín’ (Hands off Palestine) and ‘Saoirse don Phalastín’ (Freedom for Palestine).

At this, several police approached and arrested the individual. The individual was charged with “Verstoß Versammlungsgesetzwhich means “Violation of the assembly law”, in this case being the fact that the person spoke Irish.

This arrest was not an isolated or random incident. Later on in the afternoon, students occupied Humboldt University in protest of Germany’s increasing weaponisation of deportations, particularly against Palestinians and those who support Palestinian liberation, including the Berlin4. Some of the same members of the Polizei​​​​​​​ who were on duty at the protest at the​​​​​​​ Irish Embassy, and who had at the embassy taken a hands-off approach for once, could later be seen on video beating and brutalising the people standing outside the occupied lecture hall in support of those inside. Arabic was banned at this student protest.

The same afternoon, in Leipzig, the German Federal Administrative Court ruled against stopping deportations to Greece. This decision sets an extremely frightening precedent in Germany, which many expect will result in the mass deportation of asylum seekers and refugees. Deportations to Greece from Germany have been largely halted since 2011 due to inhumane living conditions there for deportees.

Last Friday, the Berlin administrative court granted interim relief to one of the Irish citizens that received a deportation order at the beginning of January. The other three people, another Irish citizen, a Polish citizen and a U.S. citizen, have not yet received the same word back, but they have received a court order which states that they can stay until a decision is made on the filed motion within the coming days or weeks.

The motion that the individuals filed was to be able to stay in Berlin for the duration of the appeal of their cases – which the Ministry for the Interior of Berlin originally wanted them to do from their respective home countries.

Le meas,

  • IrishBlocBerlin

Contact: irishblocberlin@proton.me

Instagram: irishblocberlin

Can You Simply Ban Fascism?

The Romanian election debacle shows why the judiciary cannot stop the rise of the far right


16/04/2025

In Europe and the US, courts have become the terrain where lost electoral battles are refought. Populist politicians and parties, more and more successful in the polls, find themselves on the defensive in lawsuits that aim to take them out of political and public life because of their misdeeds. Sometimes it works, as in the case of Marine Le Pen’s condemnation for misusing European funds. Sometimes it fails miserably, as in the case of Donald Trump, whose near absolute immunity was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Either way, the issue in such cases is fairly straightforward: your local far-right lunatic is or is not guilty of breaking the law. Of course, there are political questions about the abuse of courts or the facile transformation of politicians into victims and martyrs, but the matter is ultimately one of legality. It gets thornier, however, when we turn to legal consequences based on political opinions. Can and should far-right politicians and parties be banned simply because they are far-right?

While Germans of all political shades fret over banning the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Romania has taken the lead and decided that yes—they can and they should. The Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) annulled the December presidential elections won by a far-right dark horse candidate, causing an international commotion. Now that the initial winner, Călin Georgescu, has also been banned from running in the elections that will be re-run in May, we are witnessing a natural experiment that will answer a burning question: does banning a popular far-right politician work?

Judiciary militant democracy

To answer this question, we must first figure out what “working” means. The most grandiose interpretation is the protection of democracy. Georgescu, an ultranationalist, mystical fascist who ran an intransparent campaign allegedly financed by Russian money, is, undoubtedly, a threat to democracy. But is a court decision against him actually more democratic?

By engaging in “militant democracy,” the CCR chose to invalidate the votes of millions of Romanians who had already expressed their wish to have Georgescu as their president. That might indeed be justified if there was a clear case of fraud or external interference, but the decision was muddled at best. Allegations of external financing were vague, and the technical legality of the CCR taking ruling over the validity of the elections in the way it did is dubious. Nevertheless, this is still a question of facts and jurisprudence. What is more worrying is that the Court went beyond that and started judging politics as well.

The CCR had already started its political rulings in October 2024, when it banned Romanian MEP Diana Șoșoacă from running for president due to her anti-constitutional opinions. More specifically, according to the Court’s ruling, Șoșoacă’s “intentions to remove Romania from NATO and from the EU (RoExit)” were contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

That we should not want Șoșoacă as president is made obvious by her reaction to the ban, in which she blamed Jews and Khazars. Nevertheless, the decision proved highly controversial, including among other politicians who vied for the presidency. Even if none of them would describe themselves as “pro-Russian,” certainly not to the explicit extent to which Șoșoacă has, the enshrinement of some constitutional issues as unquestionable struck many as a step too far.

It was, however, only the first step. Georgescu’s attempt to run again in the May elections was first refused by Romania’s Central Electoral Bureau (BEC), a decision then upheld by the CCR. Both rulings were justified based on the previous CCR decisions that annulled the elections and banned Șoșoacă. As the CCR had already established its capacity to ban candidates on political grounds, and as it had also already established Georgescu’s political misdeeds, the Court declared it obvious that he could not run for president (again).

The thicket of self-referential reasonings becomes difficult to follow at this point, but the CCR’s decision comes down to a simple line of thought. Georgescu, it had found in December, ran his campaign with the help of unnamed external (Russian) interferences – an allegation that is, to repeat, yet unproven. This shows that he does not respect constitutional democratic values and therefore does not fulfill the basic requirements for becoming Romanian President. This then allows BEC to disqualify him from participating in the 2025 elections due to the precedent set by the Șoșoacă decision.

This decision then is also, at best, muddled. The passing of the ball from the CCR to the BEC and back makes for an opaque institutional setting in which there is little accountability for momentous decisions. Perhaps even more worrying is the CCR’s overreach. As neither Georgescu nor Șoșoacă fell short of any of the formal requirements for the candidacy, the CCR took it upon itself to assess their political opinions, which they found to be contrary to Romania’s constitutional values even if they had not yet manifested in the form of any illegal act condemned by a court of law.

Now, it might make sense that candidates with fundamentally anti-democratic intentions, such as banning categories of citizens from voting, may not run. But the CCR went way beyond that, referring to the constitutional values of Romania’s orientation towards Europe and NATO and framing the elections’ stakes as a geopolitical choice. By using Russia as a foil and a scarecrow, the CCR virtually ruled that questioning the geopolitical status quo disqualifies you from being the country’s president. Democracy was strengthened by situating some issues outside of what can be legitimately debated and changed.

The far right is everywhere

Perhaps, however, the CCR’s ban worked in a different sense, and it successfully cut short the growth of the far right. It is true that the ban was followed by some infighting in the sovereigntist camp, infighting that still continues. It is also true that the reaction to Georgescu’s ban was violent, but ultimately minor, showing at least that the far-right’s electoral success cannot be transformed into an organized social basis. Not yet, at least.

But none of this means that the coming elections will not be won by someone with similar views. The leading sovereigntist politician before Georgescu’s meteoric apparition, George Simion, is still allowed to run and leading in all the polls. Even if Simion loses the election’s second round, the other choices are almost as abysmal. As we know from Germany, far-right success causes the center to imitate and follow, not to resist and move toward the left.

All other candidates who seem to stand a chance are newcomers who have not run in the annulled elections. That does not mean they are in any way breaths of fresh air in Romanian politics. Although the election is run on debates about who is and is not against the “system,” all candidates are deeply embedded in Romanian political and financial networks.

One of them is Victor Ponta, a former Prime Minister who resigned after a nightclub fire that ultimately killed 64 caused massive protests. Ponta chose to make his political comeback on the unsubtle platform: “Romania first.” His self-presentation as a sovereigntist alternative to Simion, however, suffered by his inexplicable recent admission that, as Prime Minister, he accepted the flooding of several Romanian villages on the Danube in order to save Belgrade, a deal that brought him honorary Serbian citizenship.

Another favorite is Crin Antonescu, a prominent politician in the early 2010s who has been lying low for the last 10 years. He made a comeback after Georgescu shook up the Romanian political scene and is the common candidate of the Social Democrats and the Liberals, the two largest parties of Romania, and also the biggest losers of the annulled elections. Both old and new, Antonescu stands a chance, but his win would certainly not be a loss for nationalists. His campaign banks on national identity and moral majorities, coming out strongly against LGBT rights and for traditional values, and explicitly taking Donald Trump as a positive model.

The last strong contender is Nicușor Dan, currently Mayor of Bucharest for the second consecutive term. Dan is the closest this race comes to a (liberal) left-wing candidate. He is one of the founders of the Save Romanian Union (USR), which originated in an anti-corruption activist group. But anti-corruption campaigns have never been critical of neoliberal capitalism in Romania, and both Dan and USR have since shed all traces of liberal progressivism they might have espoused.

Dan left USR when the party still stood for tolerance and individual rights because its members voted to boycott a referendum aimed at introducing a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Romanian Constitution. This was just the highlight of a lifelong series of anti-LGBTQ declarations and measures, which he still embraces as a presidential candidate.

His controversial exit from the party did not stop him from seeking and accepting USR’s endorsement for the May election, in a coup against the party’s initial candidate, Elena Lasconi. Lasconi was the runner-up in the December elections but now barely registers on the polls, so it might make sense for USR to jump ship. But the BEC has already announced that the mid-campaign change is not legal, so the end result is simply more chaos. Together with his refusal to make known the identity of his most generous campaign donors, Dan’s politicking shows that even the most anti-system candidates are, at best, a conservative opportunist.

As one Romanian commentator wrote, the election is now just a “struggle between two forms of self-colonization.” Not only does the center cling onto a local variety of neoliberal Europeanism, but the far-right sovereigntists are part of a European, even global movement, with connections and models throughout the Western world. This intra-elite competition elides the needs of the working class, the needs of the poor in one of Europe’s most unequal countries. It tries to win their votes and loyalty only through scapegoating, conservatism, and crass nationalism. Rather than mitigating the rightward shift, the CCR’s ban was just a move within the political games that are accelerating it.

Who is an extremist?

But what if it had worked? What if Georgescu’s ban was the end of Romanian nationalism? Or what if, in another time and another place, another court banning another far-right candidate might actually stop their ascendancy?

Some positive examples of legal action against the far right do exist. It is, after all, an absolute good that someone doing a Nazi salute can go to prison in Germany. It is also an absolute good that the glorification of the most important Romanian interwar fascist movement, the Legion of the Archangel Michael, is similarly illegal. It would be even better if this was actually enforced. These concessions won from the state, however, are neither neutral instruments nor a political strategy.

Just look at what courts are doing right now. In the US, they are allowing the deportation of anti-genocide activists. In Germany, they might do the same. In states that are founded on capitalism and colonialism, courts and laws are bloody instruments for the protection of capitalist and colonialist interests.

Trying to redirect these instruments and make them work against the far right might be efficient if the conditions allow it – examples like US desegregation do exist. But the Romanian case is illustrative of why this strategy is not only inefficient but also self-defeating. Șoșoacă and Georgescu were banned from running for president because of their anti-EU, anti-NATO politics. The exact same criteria could be used to ban a radical socialist candidate.If the courts can decide that “extremist” political opinions threatening the status quo exclude one from the democratic process, then those decisions will inevitably also come against those who see the status quo as unequal, as unfair, as criminal. In the eyes of the law, the left and the right are both disruptive and illegitimate. Banning the far right can be a legislative victory. But if it is not accompanied by social and political victories, it only strengthens the force that will soon come down against the left.

A Taiwanese Perspective on Oppression and solidarity

Of course Taiwanese people support Palestine. We have our own history of oppression


15/04/2025

My friends often tell me they admire my compassion and empathy for Palestinians. But I often wonder—how could one not feel for them? Observing their responses to my opinions, I realized that we see the world through different lenses, and I cannot blame them for that.

I was born and raised in Taiwan, a country that has experienced over a century of foreign domination and authoritarian rule. In 1895, following the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Japan ruled Taiwan until 1945, introducing modernization efforts such as infrastructure development and education systems. However, these advancements came with cultural suppression and exploitation, including forced assimilation policies and economic control [Cultural assimilation under Japanese rule – Roy, Denny. Taiwan: A Political History, Cornell University Press, 2003].

After Japan’s defeat in World War II, the Republic of China (ROC) assumed control of Taiwan. The Kuomintang (KMT), led by Chiang Kai-shek, retreated to Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War. Initially seen as liberators, the KMT soon imposed authoritarian rule. In 1947, the 228 Incident occurred when government forces violently suppressed civilian protests, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 18,000 to 28,000 people.

Following this, Taiwan entered the “White Terror” period, lasting from 1949 to 1992. During this time, the KMT government enforced martial law, suppressing political dissent through imprisonment, torture, and executions. Estimates suggest that at least 3,000 to 4,000 people were executed, and over 140,000 were imprisoned.

Even today, Taiwan faces international challenges, notably from the People’s Republic of China, which seeks to limit Taiwan’s participation in global organizations.

Because of this history, we have fought tirelessly for our freedom of speech, human rights, and recognition from the world—just as Palestinians do today. That is why I feel such a deep connection to their struggle.

Some of my European friends do not seem to share the same level of empathy. I have come to understand that their perspective is shaped by history. For the past 500 years, many European nations expanded their influence through conquest, domination, and colonization, shaping their worldview differently [European colonial legacy – Osterhammel, Jürgen. Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, Markus Wiener Publishers, 2005]. Growing up, their history books and cultural narratives often centered on power and expansion, rather than the experiences of those who were oppressed. This may explain why it is harder for some to fully grasp the suffering of those who live under occupation and systemic oppression.

When people say that Palestinians do not want peace, it frustrates me deeply. Peace cannot exist unless the oppressed have the same rights as the oppressor. True peace means equality—where Palestinians, like people in Europe or anywhere else, can live freely with full rights, dignity, and security. Until then, we cannot say that the world is truly at peace.

When Protest Becomes the Punchline

The Art of Humiliating Elon Musk


13/04/2025

When it comes to satirical dissent, London is not, and never has been shy. It’s a city where nappy-wearing Donald Trump inflatables fly over Parliament, where people dress as turds to protest a council that can’t clean up its own shit, and where a clown convinced half the UK to leave Europe, oh wait, that wasn’t satire. Buffoonery aside, if there’s one thing London does consistently well, it’s mockery as a civil tradition.

Lately, though, the city has surpassed itself, graduating from headline grabbing high-jinks to calculated, viral comedy gold. Not because the issues are any less serious, on the contrary, but because the target—one Elon Musk—is begging to be ridiculed.

Over the past few weeks—and in direct response to Musk’s increasingly desperate lurch to the far right, his fascist salute photo-op, DOGE, and his ongoing display of slimy billionaire entitlement—activists have launched a series of polished stunts aimed squarely at his most visible asset, Tesla.

As well as the appearance of “Swasticar” stickers and “Musk-B-Gone” air fresheners, London bus stops and Tube carriages have been hijacked with high-gloss, high-punching mock-ads strapped with lines like “Now With White Power Steering” and “The Fast and the Führer”. Groups like Led By Donkeys, Takedown Tesla, and Everyone Hates Elon are executing increasingly coordinated actions, with the latter even inviting the public to smash a second-hand Tesla in the name of art (and catharsis). It’s guerrilla meme-fare for the man who once profoundly declared “I am meme”. 

But while the targets—electric cars and a Mars-obsessed CEO—are relatively new, fascism, notably, is not. And neither are the activists’ tactics. Satirical dissent has long been an important force in revealing truth and engaging an apathetic public in politics and debate around the world.

The Situationist International (SI), an international organisation of social revolutionaries, called it détournement, or the hijacking of the symbols of dominant culture by twisting them into critique. Turn the ad into an attack, the brand into a punchline and use public space as a stage for dissent.

It’s a spirit that has surfaced again and again. In the UK, Space Hijackers, a group of self-described “anarchitects” once attempted to bring a tank to a G20 protest and on another occasion listed the London Olympics on eBay. And in Paris, Jeudi-Noir turned squatting into protest performance, occupying luxury flats and holding press conferences from balconies to spotlight the absurdity of housing injustice in a city with thousands of empty high-end properties.

More notably, it’s a philosophy seen through the actions of the Yippies in the 1960s, a famous group of activists who also treated politics like street theatre. Knowing shouting wasn’t enough, they made protest impossible to ignore. They levitated the Pentagon (or tried to) and nominated a pig for president as a kind of pre-internet shitpost. 

Which brings us neatly back to a man who has, in recent months, become more famous for his shitposting than his rockets to Mars—rockets which, like Tesla stock, have been in freefall. According to the Financial Times, Tesla has just recorded its worst quarter since 2022, with vehicle deliveries down 13%. It’s the sharpest decline in the company’s history and analysts aren’t just blaming market competition or supply chain issues, they’re pointing to the increasingly radioactive brand of Elon Musk himself.

This shows the cultural and financial unravelling hasn’t happened in isolation. It’s been accelerated by the new wave of activist groups who’ve realised that in an age when power is performative, sometimes protest has to be too. Some might argue satirical activism makes reality and the struggles we face feel unserious—but when a 53-year old billionaire CEO can tank his company’s stock with a meme, desperately pretend to be good at video games, tweet fascist dog-whistles and conspiracy theories, and still be treated as a visionary, it’s not the protest that’s absurd, it’s the context. In that landscape, satire isn’t a sideshow, it’s a translation. A form of dissent that meets chaos with clarity and spreads faster than investor panic at a Tesla earnings call.

Note: one of the actions mentioned in the article – the smashing of the Tesla – is scheduled to take place on April 10th.