Michael Gaynor
President Trump insisted on doing things his way and frustrated anti-Trump "Progressives" embraced "doublethink" and lost their minds
Who really believes that obstruction of INjustice is equivalent to obstruction of justice?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Michael Gaynor
May 27, 2019

President Trump is alive and well, so looking into the Obama Administration's investigation of the Trump campaign is on, as it should be.

Frank Sinatra closed his signature song this way:

Oh no, oh no, not me

I did it my way

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows

And did it my way

President Trump has himself. He said the things he truly feels, took the blows, and won the Presidency of the United States in the greatest upset in American political history.

"Progressives" and their Deep State and media allies bitterly, but unsuccessfully, opposed President Trump's election and then worked to remove President Trump from office on the ground that he colluded and/or conspired with Russia, ultimately failing miserably.

Undaunted, President Trump's enemies in politics and the progressive media insist that he must have obstructed justice in defending himself against the bogus Russia collusion charge and should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.

That collusion charge is ridiculous as well as without merit, but it is the basis of the "obstruction of justice" case being fashioned by the "Impeach Trump" crowd railing against investigation of the investigators as outrageous instead of the investigation itself.

It's reminiscent of Alger Hiss insisting that he wasn't a Communist.

Who really believes that President Trump ran for President of the United States at an age at which most people have retired, retire or soon will retire in order to be a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin?

At least the charge that President Trump ran to enhance the Trump brand was plausible and it did not involve nonsensical collusion.

Who really believes that obstruction of INjustice is equivalent to obstruction of justice?

Folks who said that 2016 Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material was not criminal and insisted that she lacked any criminal intent and was no worse than careless proceeded to pillory President Trump for replacing FBI Director Comey and complain that his cooperation with the Mueller investigation was insufficient

This flagrant flip flopping of the anti-Trump "progressives" would fascinate the author of the novel 1984, George Orwell.

As explained in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four):

"In 1984, there is a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, the superstates that emerged from the global atomic war. The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein, explains that each state is so strong it cannot be defeated, even with the combined forces of two superstates, despite changing alliances. To hide such contradictions, history is rewritten to explain that the (new) alliance always was so; the populaces are accustomed to doublethink and accept it."

Orwell explained that doublethink is:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.

Even to understand the word – doublethink – involved the use of doublethink.

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.

Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

"Orwell explains that the Party could not protect its near-absolute power without degrading its people with constant propaganda. Yet knowledge of this brutal deception, even within the Inner Party itself, could lead to the implosion of the State.

Although Nineteen Eighty-Four is most famous for the Party's pervasive surveillance of everyday life, this control means that the population of Oceania – all of it and including the ruling elite – could be controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday thought and language. Newspeak is the method for controlling thought through language; doublethink is the method of directly controlling thought.

"Earlier in the book, doublethink is explained as being able to control your memories, to be able to manually forget something, then to forget about forgetting. This is demonstrated by O'Brien, during the time when Winston Smith is being tortured toward the end of the book.

"Newspeak incorporates doublethink, as it contains many words that create assumed associations between contradictory meanings, especially true of fundamentally important words such as good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, and justice and injustice.

"In the case of workers at the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth, doublethink means being able to falsify public records, and then believe in the new history that they themselves have just rewritten. As revealed in Goldstein's Book, the Ministry's name is itself an example of doublethink: the Ministry of Truth is really concerned with lies. The other ministries of Airstrip One are similarly named: the Ministry of Peace is concerned with war, the Ministry of Love is concerned with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty is concerned with starvation. The three slogans of the Party – War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength – are also examples.

"Moreover, doublethink's self-deception allows the Party to maintain huge goals and realistic expectations:

If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes.

"Thus each Party member could be a credulous pawn but would never lack relevant information, the Party being both fanatical and well informed and thus unlikely either to 'ossify' or 'grow soft' and collapse. Doublethink would avoid a 'killing the messenger' attitude that could disturb the Command structure. Thus doublethink is the key tool of self-discipline for the Party, complementing the state-imposed discipline of propaganda and the police state. These tools together hide the government's evil not just from the people but from the government itself – but without the confusion and misinformation associated with primitive totalitarian regimes.

"Doublethink is critical in allowing the Party to know what its true goals are without recoiling from them, avoiding the conflation of a regime's egalitarian propaganda with its true purpose.

"The anti-Trump progressives are not ruling, so doublethink does not work well and they are frantic.

Now that the United States Justice Department under former and current Attorney General William Barr is investigating the investigators and principals of the Obama Administration including President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice and others should be asked the questions made famous by Senator Howard Baker – "What did you know and when did you know it?, the "progressive" chorus dreads "transparency' and demands secrecy.

No wonder those anti-Trump progressives are frantic!

Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote, "When you strike at a king, you must kill him."

President Trump is alive and well, so looking into the Obama Administration's investigation of the Trump campaign is on, as it should be.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

More by this author

November 7, 2019
Sean Hannity, please send "The Donald" T. Harry Williams' pulitzer-prize and national book award winning autobiography of "The Kingfish," Louisiana's Huey Long


October 31, 2019
Brian Kilmeade, man up and apologize to Father Morey


October 6, 2019
Hillary Clinton is still running against Donald Trump, and it may become official


May 27, 2019
President Trump insisted on doing things his way and frustrated anti-Trump "Progressives" embraced "doublethink" and lost their minds


May 19, 2019
Has Hofstra University disqualified itself from hosting a 2020 Presidential Debate?


April 25, 2019
Message to Sean Hannity: Like President Trump, Lori Loughlin is presumed to be innocent and not to have criminal or corrupt intent


April 13, 2019
Lori Loughlin is entitled to a fair trial as well as the presumption of innocence, and you are poisoning the jury pool, Mr. Bongino


April 5, 2019
Should team Hannity be urging fair treatment for Lori Loughlin?


March 14, 2019
Let's not crucify Lori Loughlin and her husband for ignorance


February 18, 2019
Displaying a Robert E. Lee biography in a congressional office may not be politically correct...


More articles