By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent statement, Trump claimed that the “radicals on the right” are motivated by a desire to prevent crime, implicitly excusing their actions. He placed the blame on “radicals on the left,” labeling them as the problem. This follows a pattern of Trump defending those who commit violence aligned with his political views. This stance is consistent with his past support for individuals and groups accused of violence, including those involved in the January 6 Capitol riot and the 2017 Unite the Right rally.
Read the original article here
Trump Gives Mindblowing Defense for Far-Right Radicals. This is the subject, and unfortunately, it seems to fit a pattern.
The phrase “Proud Boys stand back and stand by” echoes in the air, a chilling reminder of the dog whistles and coded language often employed. This is not an isolated incident. Charlie Kirk, a figure known for provocative statements, was shot by a far-right radical. And Trump, in the wake of this, offered a defense that is both shocking and, frankly, expected. He claimed the radicals on the right act as they do because of crime. The same radicals, apparently, are just trying to prevent crime. He also, in the same breath, denounced the left as “vicious and horrible,” a common rhetorical tactic meant to deflect and divide.
Trump’s response is, in essence, an endorsement of right-wing violence. He seems to be excusing actions and justifying the behavior of those who share his political ideology. This is not necessarily surprising, given his history of supporting those who engage in violence and the January 6th rioters. He seems to want to paint right-wing extremists as vigilante heroes. He seems to be creating a narrative that frames the “left” as the enemy. It is a dangerous game.
The reality, however, paints a different picture. Trump’s statement is deeply misleading. Right-wing violence has been a persistent problem in the United States for years. Statistics from the Center for Strategic and International Studies show that right-wing attacks accounted for the majority of all terrorist incidents between 1994 and 2020. The numbers tell a clear story, one that Trump seemingly ignores. He wants to protect his base, no matter the cost, which is the problem.
This blatant attempt to defend political violence is part of a broader pattern. Trump’s words are not just rhetoric; they are a signal to his supporters. He is clearly not interested in turning down the temperature on political tensions in the United States. He is, rather, fanning the flames. He has given the go-ahead to right-wing radicals to take matters into their own hands.
The irony, and the danger, are palpable. Trump is essentially offering a permission structure to his followers to commit violence, echoing similar historical events like the Reichstag Fire. The implications are severe. The country is more divided than ever, and the blame lies squarely with the one stirring the pot.
This division is fueled at the top, and Trump’s words are a symptom of a much deeper problem. The victimhood of the right has gone mainstream. The narrative is built on lies.
Trump continues to deflect, deny, and reverse the roles of victim and offender. He condemns the left as the source of all evil, while excusing the violence perpetrated by those on the right. It is a classic move for an abusive person. It is also a roadmap for chaos and the beginning of a civil war.
The bottom line is that Trump excuses terrorism by the Right. His words have consequences. The question is, what will we do about it?