Doublethink Defense for the DNC

Several conservative news sources, including Breitbart, have recently reported a story that the liberal media is apparently ignoring because it clearly reflects negatively on the Democrats: a lawsuit that has been filed against the DNC by one of the former candidates to lead that entity.  A fellow named Vincent Tolliver, who hails from Arkansas, had recently declared his intent to be one of the ten competing candidates for the job of DNC chair.  Unfortunately for Mr. Tolliver, he chose to do something that is highly risky in any Democrat power play: he spoke the truth, a bit of cheeky foolishness that got him quickly and quietly bounced from the competition by current chair, Donna Brazile, another Dem who has had her own problems with truth issues, but for the opposite reason.

Whether Tolliver believed that his own minority status might offer him some freedom to point out a major problem with another minority candidate, we can't know.  But point out he did when he reminded fellow Democrats that their full acceptance of and total support for the LGBT community is a bit out of sync with support for Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to replace Brazile.  Tolliver noted that homosexuality is not widely tolerated in Muslim countries and in many can warrant a death penalty.  That Tolliver legitimately pointed out a quite logical contradiction in the current Democrat orthodoxy meant nothing to Commissar Brazile, who called for his political defenestration for his religious intolerance, and out the window he went.  Tolliver's intolerable intolerance of a currently coveted religious minority earned him immediate political banishment, if not to the far reaches of Siberia, at least to the eastern reaches of Arkansas, which, for coastal, elitist liberals, is far worse.

The question here is whether this heretical upstart is being banished for what is merely an audacious assault on the usual, widely practiced Democrat hypocrisy, usually a cherished, endearing trait in that party's candidates, or could it be that he made the far more serious mistake of blaspheming against the party's increasingly utilized and far more sinister doublethink that George Orwell introduced to the world in his dystopian novel, 1984?  Orwell describes that concept:

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.

Can you possibly read that paragraph without seeing similarities to the increasingly bizarre behaviors of Democrats in recent years?  That description so describes their conduct that it should be included in their party platform.  It certainly explains how Tolliver's offensive observation was so intolerable to such a militantly tolerant and inclusive organization, does it not?  Or how universities are bastions of free speech unless you try to practice actual free speech on a campus?  Or how Democrats can scream charges of fascism and totalitarianism at Republican politicians who are merely mimicking Democrats' previous actions?  In fact, it even explains their fanatic insistence on calamitous climate change sans evidence, and globetrotting in private jets to protest the use of fossil fuels.  For certain, it shows how they can empower the Muslim faith within the party leadership while simultaneously waving their gay rainbow banners.

If I were Tolliver, I wouldn't file my suit in a blue state – liberal insanity may be recognized there as a legitimate legal gambit.  Call it the Doublethink Defense.

Several conservative news sources, including Breitbart, have recently reported a story that the liberal media is apparently ignoring because it clearly reflects negatively on the Democrats: a lawsuit that has been filed against the DNC by one of the former candidates to lead that entity.  A fellow named Vincent Tolliver, who hails from Arkansas, had recently declared his intent to be one of the ten competing candidates for the job of DNC chair.  Unfortunately for Mr. Tolliver, he chose to do something that is highly risky in any Democrat power play: he spoke the truth, a bit of cheeky foolishness that got him quickly and quietly bounced from the competition by current chair, Donna Brazile, another Dem who has had her own problems with truth issues, but for the opposite reason.

Whether Tolliver believed that his own minority status might offer him some freedom to point out a major problem with another minority candidate, we can't know.  But point out he did when he reminded fellow Democrats that their full acceptance of and total support for the LGBT community is a bit out of sync with support for Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to replace Brazile.  Tolliver noted that homosexuality is not widely tolerated in Muslim countries and in many can warrant a death penalty.  That Tolliver legitimately pointed out a quite logical contradiction in the current Democrat orthodoxy meant nothing to Commissar Brazile, who called for his political defenestration for his religious intolerance, and out the window he went.  Tolliver's intolerable intolerance of a currently coveted religious minority earned him immediate political banishment, if not to the far reaches of Siberia, at least to the eastern reaches of Arkansas, which, for coastal, elitist liberals, is far worse.

The question here is whether this heretical upstart is being banished for what is merely an audacious assault on the usual, widely practiced Democrat hypocrisy, usually a cherished, endearing trait in that party's candidates, or could it be that he made the far more serious mistake of blaspheming against the party's increasingly utilized and far more sinister doublethink that George Orwell introduced to the world in his dystopian novel, 1984?  Orwell describes that concept:

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.

Can you possibly read that paragraph without seeing similarities to the increasingly bizarre behaviors of Democrats in recent years?  That description so describes their conduct that it should be included in their party platform.  It certainly explains how Tolliver's offensive observation was so intolerable to such a militantly tolerant and inclusive organization, does it not?  Or how universities are bastions of free speech unless you try to practice actual free speech on a campus?  Or how Democrats can scream charges of fascism and totalitarianism at Republican politicians who are merely mimicking Democrats' previous actions?  In fact, it even explains their fanatic insistence on calamitous climate change sans evidence, and globetrotting in private jets to protest the use of fossil fuels.  For certain, it shows how they can empower the Muslim faith within the party leadership while simultaneously waving their gay rainbow banners.

If I were Tolliver, I wouldn't file my suit in a blue state – liberal insanity may be recognized there as a legitimate legal gambit.  Call it the Doublethink Defense.

RECENT VIDEOS