It Exposes a Left That Can Barely Quench Its Thirst for Blood – When Yet Another Assassination Attempt Fails

COLUMN • After the latest armed attack targeting Donald Trump and his entire administration, an unsettling truth is revealed—with large segments of the Left, the hatred has gone so far that violence is no longer unequivocally condemned; on the contrary, it is welcomed and celebrated. They want to see blood and wish for death. What was once an absolute boundary is now turning into pure evil.

What should be uncomplicated has become political. A leading western politician and his administration are subjected to an attack intended to kill—and instead of an obvious and unreserved condemnation, we see a pattern of rationalizations, cruel comments like “Why do they always miss?”, and in many cases, groundless claims that the whole thing was staged by Trump himself.

I have personally seen hundreds of such comments on social media, from socialists, Islamists, and feminists—and even from confused right-wingers fooled by the massive propaganda in Swedish and international mainstream media. Since Trump was not killed this time either—it must all be fake.

Despite Social Democratic teacher Tomas Allen Coles’ actions—with a manifesto designating the Trump administration as a target. Despite him storming The White House Correspondents’ Dinner with a rifle, pistol, and several knives. Even though Cole is now imprisoned and awaiting trial.

This is not only remarkable—it is a sign that something fundamental has shifted. The Left is trying to distort reality—at any cost. They simply want to see the American president dead. And this is a narrative that has been pushed 100 percent for nearly a decade.

It’s not that words automatically lead to action. But words shape boundaries. They set the limits of what is perceived as possible. And when those boundaries are gradually moved, when dehumanization becomes an everyday occurrence, and when contempt is institutionalized in parts of public discourse, a climate arises where the unthinkable is no longer distant. Taking up arms. Murder. Killing.

Jonas Andersson

Trump must die. He’s a fascist, a Nazi, and a racist! He’s Hitler! The left’s foot soldiers—confused young men across the country—have been encouraged to act, to take action. The encouragement has come from the highest politicians to the most prominent journalists and the most depraved late-night TV comedians.

For a long time, large parts of the political Left have been accustomed to describing their ideological opponents not only as wrong, but as dangerous. As a threat to society, to democracy, to the future, to the very survival of the planet. That kind of rhetoric has consequences.

To Wish for Death

When people are no longer depicted as legitimate actors in a political conflict but as something that must be stopped at any cost, the perspective on what means seem reasonable also changes.

It’s not that words automatically lead to action. But words shape boundaries. They set the limits of what is perceived as possible. And when those boundaries are gradually moved, when dehumanization becomes an everyday thing and contempt is institutionalized in parts of public discourse, a climate arises where the unthinkable is no longer as distant.

Taking up arms. Murder. Killing.

Teacher and Democrat Tomas Allen Cole arrested after attempted murder of Donald Trump and the Republican administration, April 2026. Anti-Trump demonstration. Photo: Facsimile Facebook and Excel23 CC BY-SA 4.0.

This is not an isolated phenomenon in the US. The same pattern can be seen at home. When Sweden Democrat (SD) campaign workers are attacked in Malmö, these are people engaged in the most fundamental democratic work. They hand out flyers, meet voters, represent a party within the parliamentary system.

Their exposure to violence should be a non-issue—something that immediately draws unreserved condemnation.

Yet that is not always the case. The reactions are sometimes cooler, more hesitant, less clear. As if there’s an implicit judgement about who is a “real” victim and who isn’t. It’s in this selectivity where the real danger lies.

There is therefore a point where society must choose. Either you hold fast to the principle that political opponents are just that—opponents in a debate, people to be met with arguments, not threats or violence. Or you accept, either consciously or unconsciously, a climate where certain people are gradually dehumanized and where the line of what is possible is moved.

Jonas Andersson

A society that starts weighing violence based on who is affected has already started to undermine one of its most fundamental principles.

When this principle is weakened it opens up a space where other logics take over. Then it is no longer about right and wrong in any absolute sense, but about perspective, belonging, and identity. Violence becomes something that can, in some cases, be explained, relativized, or even indirectly excused.

I will never forget Fredrik Reinfeldt’s (M) statement that Sweden Democrats might have to expect being assaulted if they have such political views. For this incitement he should, in my view, have been prosecuted—as prime minister—or at least later on.

The Threat to Democracy Comes from the Left—for Real

This is where the development gets truly serious. Not because the majority would suddenly accept violence, but because the boundary for what is considered entirely unacceptable begins to erode. And when that border weakens, it only takes a few individuals willing to take that step. That is what has happened in the US, time and again.

The threats from left-wing extremists are real, as are the threats from Islamists—and these groups are closely intertwined today.

Socialists demonstrate against Trump in the USA. Photo: Excel23 CC BY-SA 4.0

A democratic society relies on more than just laws. It rests on a shared understanding of what must never be accepted. Political violence has historically been such a boundary. When it is no longer self-evident, when reactions begin to vary depending on who is targeted, then it is not just isolated events we are witnessing—then it is a shift in the very foundation itself.

There is therefore a point where society must choose. Either you hold fast to the principle that political opponents are just that—opponents in a debate, people who should be met with arguments, not threats or violence.

Or, consciously or unconsciously, you accept a climate where certain people are gradually dehumanized and where the boundaries for what is considered possible are moved.

It does not always begin with actions. It begins with words, with tone, with the kind of reactions deemed acceptable. It continues with silence, with reluctance to speak out clearly. And ultimately, one is left facing the consequences, wondering how it got so far.

The question is not whether the signs are there. They are—in the form of yet another socialist with weapons trying to shoot and kill the American president—and what happens in the US usually finds its way to Sweden quite soon after.

The question is whether we in Sweden in general—and the Sweden Democrats in particular—are prepared for this new bloodthirsty left.