I remember the Pulse terrorist attack vividly.
I remember walking into work and seeing the quiet, concerned look on my coworker's faces unsure of what to say or do.
I remember my friends calling me to ask if I was ok and suddenly feeling like the LGBT community was one.

I remember the Tree of Life Congregation terrorist attack too.
The following day at work was surreal as I felt a distinct knowing of my separation from the majority around me. The Jewish people were attacked and I stood alone, but as one with them in my world.

Despite what information later came out and the motivations involved and so on, I know what its like to feel as though you are targeted for who you are and how enraging and helpless that experience is.

But I also live in a society that views itself as my protector.

No one.
Absolutely no one supports white supremacist ideology.
But what do we do about the threat it presents?

It breaks down into three categories:

Ideology
Group Action
Individual Action

For the most part people who align themselves along the spectrum of white supremacist ideology do not engage as a public group. They rare march together. They rarely act together. They don't engage in random terrorism or public protests.

The majority of violence, almost all in fact, comes from individuals who may or may not be associated with any particular group at all but take pieces from all of it to form their own worldview.

The argument is that the ideology itself is the cause of these lone wolves acting.

The problem is you cannot use a government to eradicate an ideology or belief system. You can only push it underground.

But outside of public visibility it grows more radical and those that gravitate towards it become lost in a world of isolation and conspiracy.

I often argue that mainstream CRT race essentialism and white supremacist ideology are one in the same.

So why is one a threat and one not?
Because CRT race essentialism is mainstream and people who gravitate towards it can freely discuss their ideas in the open.

Leftwing activists to mainstream media outlets to academics to elected officials promote the ideology and are given the opportunity to advocate for it as broadly as they like. There is no social pressure to be ashamed of it or force it underground.

The danger associated with white supremacist ideology is that a group or an individual will be exposed to a constant stream of propaganda and rhetoric marinating them in a conspiratorial worldview positioning them as central figures fighting "them."

The Jews, people of color, LGBT, etc., are all conspiring against them and threatening them and society. This rhetoric does little but occupy the minds of the majority who engage in it, but for a few it emboldens them to believe they are the heroes of the story that must act.

That action is what is the threat.
There are very few ways to protect yourself from one of these people appearing at the door of your synagogue one morning and opening fire on your congregation because they believe they must stop the Jews from controlling society.

So the argument reasons society must protect itself from these individuals by denying them the ability to act.

If white supremacists can't own guns then they can't engage in surprise attacks against helpless targeted minorities.

Disarm them legally.

But what creates the threat in the first place?
They reason that the individual was radicalized by reading information that put the idea Jews are a threat in their minds. They talk with other people who talk about how the Jews are a threat.

Daily inundation.

So, they reason, if you shut down the websites. Ban the conspiracy videos. Ban the books. Shut down speeches. Shut down the message boards. Shut down the social media accounts and platforms, you will suffocate the movement itself.

There will be no place for them to go.

They'll be isolated from each other and it will be difficult to recruit new members. In theory this should reduce the actual movement.

The next step is to arrest the leaders for crimes of terrorism and conspiracy. Make people afraid to participate.

You make examples of their leaders.
You shut down every avenue of propaganda and organizing.
You disarm them.

It should prevent future terrorism right?

That is the question we are faced with.
Is the solution effective and if so, is it then justified?

The left argues it is justified.
They see it as targeted and narrow. Impacting only this one dangerous ideology that has real world devastating consequences.

Like the effort to eradicate Islamic extremism.

The right allowed the War on Terror to target Muslims and we reasoned it was worth the risk to civil liberties if it prevented terrorism.

Today the left is arguing the same thing regarding white supremacy.