Duplicitous doublethink

Big government and the deceptive coercion to obliterate the line between wants and rights

Who are you here for, the kids or the killers? - Eric Swalwell, Jun 2, 2022 Judiciary Committee markup on confronting gun violence

George Orwell, in his book 1984, offered an interesting definition for what we now often hear described as cognitive dissonance: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” It seems we now live in a time when Orwell’s doublethink is rather pervasive. People you know are likely afflicted, and you have probably witnessed it in action in your daily life perhaps without even noticing. One example I’ve enjoyed bringing to people’s attention came from the CDC, during the Covid outbreak, regarding influenza. The CDC published in the May 2020 issue of their Emerging Infectious Diseases journal a review like one published by the WHO in 2019 (and by a similar title) that looked at decades worth of prior studies regarding non-pharmaceutical mitigations for influenza. The authors of this EID article wrote that “[o]ur systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza” (Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures ). Then, in the July 23, 2021 issue of their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , the CDC published another study in which the authors stated:

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions (e.g., cessation of global travel, mask use, physical distancing, and staying home) reduced transmission of some viral respiratory pathogens. In the United States, influenza activity decreased in March 2020, was historically low through the summer of 2020, and remained low during October 2020–May 2021 (<0.4% of respiratory specimens with positive test results for each week of the season).

Changes in Influenza and Other Respiratory Virus Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, 2020–2021 (emphasis mine)

In other words, masks have no effect on the transmission of influenza, but in 2020, masks stopped the transmission of influenza (as a note, the WHO study also discounted all of the measures listed in that 2021 CDC article, aside from isolating confirmed infected persons, as having no impact on transmission of influenza). One might or might not be amazed at the apparent dissociative issue underlying these articles, especially with the time (14 months) between publications. The issue is, government seizes on studies like the latter to trample the liberties of American citizens. Think of all the mask mandates that were pushed when everyone was cowed into fearing Covid. Remember all the Karens who went off on anyone refusing to don a face diaper? This is how citizens succumb to tyranny.

In a rant during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, Eric Swalwell went on a tirade regarding gun violence. In it, the irony of this kind of doublethink revealed itself in a period of approximately 130 seconds. Swalwell posted a four-minute forty-seven second clip of his allotted time on YouTube. Between the ten second mark and the two minute twenty-three second mark, Swalwell rants:

19 kids are dead 19 children are dead, and so to my republican colleagues I ask, who are you here for? Are you here for our kids, or are you here for the killers? Because if you were here for the kids you would do all you could to protect the next school shooting that's about to happen…You would vote to raise the age on purchasing an assault rifle. You would vote to ban high-capacity magazines. You would vote to require safe storage and you would vote to address ghost guns which are ravaging communities across America…Why aren't you trying to dramatically change the number of dead kids going into the ground Mr Jordan? Who are you here for, the kids or the killers?…And then they say that laws don't work, but they have no problem crafting laws to take away a woman's right to make her own health care decision. That law must work.

There are so many logical fallacies to unpack in those few sentences I could just about write a book. Strawman, red herring, false dilemma, appeal to pity, Dunning-Kruger - not to mention, outright lies - all are present in this collection of statements. What I want to focus on here, though, is that we have a U.S. Representative claiming that refusing to enact gun control laws is the equivalent of being “for the killers.” But…stop making laws preventing women from killing their babies!!! Do you see the psychological schism here? This is an argument common among people in favor of abortion. Though abortion is itself the murder of children (even some of the most radical leftists admit this, as can be seen in one of the most insane articles I’ve ever read titled Abortion Involves Killing - and That’s OK! ), pro-abortionists argue adamantly in favor of gun control. They dearly desire the government to create a “constitutional” right to kill babies; this violates the principle enshrined in our founding documents that the government is to protect each individual’s right to life. Likewise, these same people goad the government to institute gun control laws, insisting government violate a right the founding fathers felt important enough to explicitly protect via amendment. Is the issue becoming clearer?

Let’s set aside the fact that a couple of thousand children are killed by firearms each year and that abortion kills over half a million children annually. Forget that the government’s job is to protect people’s right to life, along with other natural rights. There is no such thing as a “constitutional right to abortion.” No one has a right to murder anyone, nor has anyone ever had such a right. The so-called “constitutional right to abortion” was manufactured out of whole cloth. It actually completely ignores the Constitution and the limited powers that the federal government possesses. In the same way, those who foment the need for “gun control” completely ignore a simple and plain reading of the Second Amendment which places no restrictions whatsoever on the types of arms people may own and bear nor on who may own or bear them. In both ways, these people trample the Constitution underfoot. In addition, the government funds organizations (shall we discuss those purposes which the Constitution permits the government to raise and spend money?) whose primary income (aside from government) comes from killing babies.

Some might at this point argue that this isn’t a big deal, that abortion isn’t really killing. The problem here is that most argue abortion is ok and should only be limited based on one or more of five criteria - size, age, location, dependence, or who is doing the killing. This is why some states have passed, or attempted to pass, laws permitting abortion up to and even after birth. Where is justification for killing or allowing to die a baby that is already born? At that point, where do we draw the line? If at that point the reason is that the baby is still dependent upon the mother and can’t survive on its own, why not permit killing up until the age of 2? Maybe 3? Perhaps many elderly fall into the same category? As I stated, this goes back to the right to life with which, according to the Declaration of Independence, all people are endowed by their Creator. Sorry…got a little sidetracked…

The problem is far broader, however, especially today. Creating special rights, like abortion, for certain groups of people always results in the violation of the rights of others. The “right to abortion,” the right for homosexuals to “marry,” the right of men pretending to be women to use ladies restrooms or participate in women’s sports, or rights granted to any other fabricated special class destroys the rights of those who do not belong to those favored groups. Consider all of the lawsuits that have arisen since the Supreme Court ruled states could not outlaw same-sex marriage. Definitional issues aside, any religious person who believes homosexuality is sin, and that marriage is a union of a man and a woman, and refuses to perform or participate in any way in a ceremony celebrating such an event, face legal challenges. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, has been taken to court multiple times for the free exercise of his religion. He refuses to bake and decorate cakes for same-sex weddings because he believes they are a violation of God’s law, so individuals, and even the State of Colorado, have sued him for violating the alleged right of two people of the same sex to be wed. By redefining the word marriage (something outside the scope of the powers granted the Supreme Court by the Constitution), Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any other religion that deems homosexuality sinful, have had their protected rights under the First Amendment rescinded. The government does not have the power to tell people how to exercise their religion; so says the First Amendment. Yet that is what is happening here - an authoritarian overthrow of people’s actual rights in order to grant others fictitious rights. This is just one example.

Locking people down over fear of a virus (violating the Fifth Amendment), unless one is remonstrating the death of a criminal at the hands of purportedly racist police (granting a preferred group special leeway). “Red-flag laws” taking people’s firearms though no crime has been committed (violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) on the word of anyone who claims that person to be a threat to himself or others (the accuser’s fear overriding the accused’s rights). Attempting to force people to accept what some claim to be “truth” (granting those few a special “right” to lord their lies over the rest) and penalizing those who state otherwise (violating the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment).

What’s worse is that those who are elected to uphold the Constitution are the most pernicious provocateurs of treating it like toilet paper. They cajole the crowds into rioting over imaginary entitlements, and rile the same to protest over legitimate liberties. They are hypocrites at best, but as Orwell stated, the Party “depends on doublethink.” Fomenting cognitive dissonance is a strategy fully espoused by politicians to protect their power. Many citizens are simply dupes in governmental gameplay. By promoting such mental and moral malaise, elected officeholders grow ever closer to becoming deep-rooted despots. We must never abandon the fight to protect our God-given liberties and against those who would usurp them for their own advancement. To help keep that in mind, I’ll close with a meme I recently came across that I believe embodies the battle: