What defines the left? A quest for ideology, a goal not found in nature. This requires formation of an Ideology about how things-should-be, which in turn requires that any person or thing which does not affirm Ideology becomes an ideological enemy.
Thus, in the view of the left, there is no method too low for dealing with these ideological enemies. They do not simply disagree; they have rejected the greatest gift ever, equality, and thus they are bad people. They must be destroyed.
If you wonder why every single leftist Revolution from France to Russia to the USA has left behind a huge trail of dead intelligent people and replaced them with a vast horde of lumpenproles, this is why. Lumpenproles are weak and dependent on the government, and thus affirm Ideology. Strong people don't and must be brought down because their very existence proves the Ideology is not necessary.
Here's the left-leaning BBC on Varg Vikernes:
He is a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi who was once in touch with his compatriot Anders Breivik, the Norwegian far-right militant who killed 77 people in attacks in Norway in 2011.Let's unpack this one a bit. There are two pieces of real information here, (a) neo-Nazi and (b) "in touch with" Anders Breivik.
But how true are they? Vikernes has clearly expressed some ideas that overlap with neo-Nazism, but he doesn't seem aligned to any neo-Nazi group or accept the whole ideology.
Further, his contact with Breivik was limited to criticism of the latter's manifesto. The BBC's "in touch with his compatriot" alludes, implies and suggests -- but not outright says, although that's not necessary for 99% of the audience, reading in a hurry, to think it did say this -- that Breivik and Vikernes are buddies in some Norwegian neo-Nazi cult.
Translation: the Ideological Enemies (I.E.s, not to be confused with the mediocre browser) are united in a single force opposing the Ideology, so we should feel justified in hating and removing them.
Now for more subterfuge:
He will be tried on incitement charges related to postings on his blog which prosecutors say were "anti-Semitic and xenophobic".Scare quotes have never been put to a more thorough use than this. First, they quote the statement by the prosecutors, and then coincidentally use quotes around the phrase "native European values" as if such things were alleged and never historically existed. (Leftists love to erase history, first because it disproves their Ideology, and second because rootless people cling to things like governments and addictions which make them easy to manipulate).
Through his writings he promotes what he calls "Odalism", an ideology based on the idea that White Europeans should re-adopt "native European values".
As before, the implication is that these two things are linked, the "anti-Semitic and xenophobic" writings and "native European values," using scare quotes to put each in a realm of the threatening, hypothetical and suspicious. Quotation marks after all are often used to express skepticism.
The BBC did a good job of this hit piece. With only a few words, they implied far more than they said, and made it look like WWII revisited: the good people of the free world against the evil organized fascists in the dark.
Should we trust or tolerate any news agency that, even by implication, lies to us on a regular basis in order to conceal its bias?