Selective omission, labelling, and the creation of fear

Is this the face of the anti-Christian left? Or is it the face of the neo-Nazi right?

It is, in fact, the face of James Wenneker Von Brunn, the 88 year old man who has been charged with the shooting which took place at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10 this year.

Read Wikipedia and you find him described as a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He is also regularly described as neo-nazi, anti-Semitic, and far-right.

However, there are things that Wikipedia and the MSM don’t tell you. They don’t mention that Von Brunn was a self-proclaimed socialist, and wrote:

“[capitalism] is past history; . . . WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.”

They don’t tell you about his hostility toward Christianity, and particularly toward the apostle Paul, also known as Saul of Tarsus. Von Brunn wrote:

Saul -- a Roman citizen -- suddenly realized how he could destroy Rome! . . . . He would simply promulgate the insane teachings of Jesus! . . . . Saul decided to begin the HOAX by inventing a miraculous encounter on the road to Damascus with the reincarnated Jesus the Christ! . . . he named his hoax "Christianity." . . . . The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION . . . CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES.

What is it about? It’s about labelling people. (Labelling people is not always wrong. Some people fit nicely into categories. But not everyone.) But this is about more than labelling. It’s also about guiding the way people think. It’s about leaving out certain details so that people will draw a certain conclusion.

And the reason for that is to scare people. The thinking is “Let’s scare them into thinking that neo-nazis are a threat. Let’s scare them into thinking that ‘right wing’ is dangerous. But whatever we do, we must not give people the impression that socialists, or those who hate Christianity, might be dangerous - because that would give people the wrong idea.”

Some things are dangerous. If you think something is dangerous, and it scares you, then by all means try to persuade other people. But if you are highly selective with your facts, and omit important details, don’t expect people to believe you.

After all, we libertarians would never do that, would we?

(Thanks very much to Jonny Newton at Entering the Whirlpool.)


Post Script: Here is another one. For sheer dishonesty, this is hard to beat. Watch this video.



Then watch this one.



Interesting, isn't it?

(Thanks for those to Greg at The Holy Cause, who has also written a helpful piece on the subject.)