Meta-Strategy

The meta-strategy is as insidious as it is brilliant. Accuse someone of being something vile, something that is repugnant to all decent people. If that someone is a politician, then that politician's entire party along with everyone who continues to support that someone is by extension a sympathizer with and supporter of the vile and repugnant thing.

But someone else will step up and say, "Wait a minute, the accusations are hysterical, factually inaccurate, and despicable in and of themselves." The accusations are vile because they further divide an already divided country. They increase the political temperature, rather than trying to reduce it."

When that statement is made, the person who makes it is invariably accused of being whatever vile and repugnant thing the accusers' have mentioned. There is no counter-argument, only vicious epithets, now hurled at the politician and anyone who questions the motives and morality of his or her accusers. When that happens, good people begin to self-censor, to remain silent when vicious accusations are made. After all, who wants to be called something vile and repugnant. And that is the overriding goal of the meta strategy—to silence any opposition so that a preferred narrative will prevail and consequently, attain political power.

That's the strategy that's being applied by the Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media—accuse an elected president of the United States of being a white supremacist. After all, they hate his position on illegal immigration; they despise his attacks on the anti-American, anti-Israel statements made by members of The Squad and other Dems; they are revolted by the man's combative style; they are incensed that he has nominated SCOTUS justices, and they recoil from the harsh reality that he beat their nominee in the 2016 election. So they call him a "white supremacist" and complement that with the implication that he is responsible for the mass casualty attacks over the past few weeks. Whether it's Beto, Biden, or Booker, the suggestion that one individual is somehow responsible for the actions of mentally unbalanced right-wing extremists has become S.O.P. for at least some prominent Democrats.

Okay, then. If that's the strategy, let's pursue it and see where it leads.

The mass shooter in Dayton seems to be getting less attention than the shooters in CA and TX. Law enforcement has noted (rather cryptically) that he pursued "violent ideologies." The trained hamsters in the main stream media seem generally uninterested in investigating those ideologies further, and the Dems are generally silent on the Dayton attack.

Andy Ngo comments:

[The Dayton shooter] had long expressed support for antifa accounts, causes and individuals. That would be the loose network of militant leftist activists who physically attack anyone to the right of Mao in the name of “anti-fascism.” In particular, [the Dayton shooter] promoted extreme hatred of American border enforcement.

“Kill every fascist,” the shooter declared in 2018 on twitter, echoing a rallying cry of antifa ideologues. Over the next year, his tweets became increasingly violent. “Nazis deserve death and nothing else,” he tweeted last October. [The Dayton shooter] frequently flung the label “Nazi” at those with whom he disagreed online.

By December, he reached out on Twitter to the Socialist Rifle ­Association, an antifa gun group, to comment about bump stocks, and the SRA responded to him. (A bump stock is an attachment for semiautomatic rifles that allow them to fire much faster.)

In the months leading to his rampage, [the Dayton shooter] expressed a longing for climactic confrontation. In ­response to an essay by Intercept writer Mehdi Hassan titled, “Yes, Let’s Defeat or Impeach Trump—but What If He Doesn’t Leave the White House?” the shooter wrote: “Arm, train, prepare.”

By June he tweeted: “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round understanding.” Last week, he promoted posts that demonized Sens. Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy’s resolution against antifa extremism.

If the GOP were to use the same meta-strategy discussed earlier in this post, they'd try to tie the Dayton shooter's left-wing ranting along with his violent affinity to antifa to the Dems, who generally avoid any criticism of the group. To their credit, the GOP hasn't done that, although a few right -leaning commentators have noted the irony.

Violent extremism—whether extreme right-wing or extreme left-wing—is an evil that every American should condemn—without finger-pointing or efforts to gain political advantage. An explicit strategy that assesses blame for the insane actions of fringe extremists is amoral. It taps tragedy for political gain, and that's simply not right.