Tony Haverford seems like a normal middle-class white man. He discusses his love for his wife, cats, and cooking. He enjoys the shows Twin Peaks and Seinfeld. However, there is something far more disturbing to be said about about Mr. Haverford.

He is a white nationalist, a group that is an "expression of white supremacy," as Ryan Lenz describes in an MSNBC interview.

The New York Times article, "A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland," written by Richard Fausset, dives into the profile of Tony Haverford, his far right political beliefs and how those beliefs function day-to-day. He discusses the evolving political background Haverford has, slowly swinging from conservative republicanism to fascist-supporting white nationalism. Many people viewed this article as a normalization of extremist values and criticized the New York Times for its publication.

In response to the backlash of this article, the New York Times stated, "The point of the story was not to normalize anything but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think." Surprisingly, I'd have to agree.

Often times, there is a call to profile the victims, to raise them up above the people who commit these egregious acts. I'd like to start by saying that I believe that this is as important, possibly even more important than journalism regarding the perpetrator. Victims deserve to have their stories told; they should be at the forefront of our nation's grief and want to change.

However, I find personal profiles in journalism, such as Fausset's article, extremely interesting in understanding the people behind groups, whether religious, political, racial, and more. While reading, I found myself disturbed at how "normal," a person with such extremist values could be; if I saw alt-right supporter, or nazi sympathizer, they wouldn't stand out in the crowd.

Fausset's piece on Tony Haverford gave Americans who support fascism a face and it should make you uncomfortable.

He showed us that extremism is far easier to explore and support in the United States, even including a link to a site where you could purchase a swastika armband. It shouldn't be that easy. In fact, it isn't even possible in Germany, where they ban Nazi symbols and holocaust denial under "defensive democracy," limits on free speech to protect the overall freedom of others.

Overall, he gave us only a small glance into the home of a white nationalist, a surface level reading into the mind of an extremist. And that is the flaw in his piece.

Fausset fails to answer the question that he later asks himself, "What makes a man start fires?" In other words, how do these ideals come about? Haverford seemed to live an average childhood, a mostly stable life. There is nothing to tip us off to a turning point.

So, when and how is extremism born? More importantly, how do we stop it?