The columnist's view, "those guys are the same sort of extremist", that is, the violent Islamist yelling Jihad messages and the "white guy" yelling anti-Muslim bigotry, they are one and the same, as they are killing.

Okay, consider that thesis at face value, now ask the follow-up question, badly missing from the equation:

Why do the media and pundits talk about the two so DIFFERENTLY, in the wake of an attack? If they are "one and the same", why the difference in the follow-up commentary?

I mean, with the "white guy" who kills visible minority victims, immediately the narrative, we are told, is a clear-thinking and focused man decided, in a carefully calculating manner, to kill, he is the hateful product of his teachers on Fox News and in the Republican Party.

In contrast, when Islamist militants kill, the narrative suddenly involves talk of insufficient psychiatry services, he misinterpreted the true meaning of religious teachers, our society failed him with our shortfalls.

Huh?