He seemed to think it was pertinent that many of the arsonists, vandals and agitators were "right-wing".
I saw no point in disputing whether they were or were-not. They were breaking basic laws of civilization and should feel the full weight of the legal system regardless of affiliation or skin color.
Whether "right" or "left", they are scum.
Eric Hoffer wrote the book The True Believer in 1951. It is still in print.
Hoffer states that mass movements begin with a widespread "desire for change" from discontented people who place their locus of control outside their power and who also have no confidence in existing culture or traditions. Feeling their lives are "irredeemably spoiled" and believing there is no hope for advancement or satisfaction as an individual, true believers seek "self-renunciation". Thus, such people are ripe to participate in a movement that offers the option of subsuming their individual lives in a larger collective. Leaders are vital in the growth of a mass movement, as outlined below, but for the leader to find any success, the seeds of the mass movement must already exist in people's hearts
Hoffer argues there are two important commonalities: "All mass movements are competitive" and perceive the supply of converts as zero-sum; and "all mass movements are interchangeable" -Wikipedia
That is, all mass movements are interchangeable to the thug who is a loser in "real life" and wants to feel powerful by cracking heads, destroying property and putting terror into the hearts of citizens.
Isn't that, by definition, a terrorist? A person not authorized by the military, i.e. a non-civil civilian who is creating terror via illegal acts?
I don't care if they are "right" or "left", "Commie" or "Reactionary" because they switch allegiance to whichever side appears most likely to win. Their loyalty is like a willow tree in a windstorm, changing direction with every gust. Today's skin-head might be tomorrow's leftist-thug.