In the first case (i.e. engaging ecoterrorists / environmentalists), the answer would be more regulation of industry, diminished mobility rights, and higher taxes. The statists support the cause, so there'd be no clampdown.

In the second case (i.e. Indian activism), the answer would be wealth redistribution, land appropriations, virtue signaling, and likely extortion of institutions like the Catholic Church. The statists support the means and the ends, and are indifferent to the efficacy of any involved efforts, so there'd be no clampdown.

In the third case, socialists--even the Babeufian variety--inevitably support maximal government by the minimally talented contra minimal government by the maximally talented. Ergo, the statists (note: Mises regarded statism as a form of socialism) would find common cause and see no need to clampdown.