In the hours after a gunman opened fire on a federal judge's home, killing her son, speculation ranged from a Jeffrey Epstein-linked hit to a QAnon truther. It seems the reality is that it's yet another anti-women attack. https://www.thedailybeast.com/gunman-ambushes-nj-federal-judge-esther-salas-husband-mark-anderl-and-son-at-home

I think that says a lot about how terrifyingly diverse and varied these ideological threats have become, that it's increasingly hard to figure out which fringe conspiracy the yahoo was inspired by.

In the past few months I've spent a lot of time delving into extremist movements that have, increasingly, been emboldened to commit acts of violence.
Notably, Incels: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/02/incels-toronto-attack-terrorism-ideological-violence/
And QAnon: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/13/qanon-canada-trudeau-conspiracy-theory/

The question remains, what do we do about this?

Maybe I'm a broken record on this, but we have been seemingly blasé about this threat. The West dumped massive amounts of money and resources into contemplating how to respond to how the Islamic State was able to radicalize believers and non-believers alike.

Where is that level of concern now? A guy tied to drive a train into a U.S Navy ship, a truck rammed the front gates of the Canadian PM's residence, someone shot a mob boss to death thinking he was part of the deep state. Violence is happening!

The complexity of the threat is increasingly difficult to grasp. The solution is not, I think, new surveillance legislation or new criminal prohibitions.

But there has got to be a counter-radicalization component to this.

You want to hate women? Fine. You want to believe that Tom Hanks is harvesting adrenochrome from children trafficked by Hilary Clinton? Fine. We shouldn't try and criminalize that speech.

But online communities harbouring these movements are encouraging violence. Nevermind the neo-Nazi terror cells that have popped up.

Where is the public policy discussion about this?