TIME has just published an extraordinary article titled The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election which admits the November 2020 Presidential election was rigged against President Trump by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and big business.
Amazingly, they manage to do this while spinning the narrative to make it seem as though these people were heroes saving America from a tyrannical dictator.
The article is so bizarre that at this point I’m genuinely unsure whether the author, Molly Ball understands what she’s writing. For example, in the early section of the article, she recounts:
“The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect [ha!] the election …
Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and … got millions of people to vote by mail. …
The President [Trump] spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.”
In other words, she spells out that the election was rigged and that mail in ballots were part of that, only to then accuse Trump of concocting some sort of outrageous lie that the ballots were rigged, in part through mail-in voting.
Have these people (I can’t bring myself to call her a journalist, she isn’t) not got a single coherent thought in their heads? And what of their readers? How are supposedly sentient beings not noticing that an article literally titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign…” corroborates Trump’s claims that work went on behind the scenes to fix the election?!
Doublethink has been with us for a while now, most notably within the realms of gender politics, but I think this may be the clearest example I’ve seen to date of its starkly obvious use within the mainstream political narrative.
For those not entirely au fait, Doublethink is a concept defined in George Orwell’s 1984. It is described as follows:
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.
He took the idea from the Soviet regime. For example, in his address to the 16th Congress of the Russian Communist Party in 1930, Joseph Stalin said:
“We are for the withering away of the state, and at the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of the state which have existed up to the present day. The highest development of the power of the state, with the object of preparing the conditions of the withering away of the state: that is the Marxist formula. Is it “contradictory”? Yes, it is “contradictory.” But this contradiction is a living thing and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic.”
What TIME is asking you to believe with this article is that a conspiracy to fix an election was required in order to maintain the integrity of free and fair elections, and that its success was a triumph of democracy. This clearly is an illogical proposition and therefore cannot be true. If Molly Ball does not know that, surely someone at TIME does.
They know that the proposition is false. They know the reader will have to jump through mental hoops to twist the narrative into conforming to logic. They know that gaslighting the reader in this way (for gaslighting is what it is) is a requisite of totalitarianism.
They’re simply hoping that you, dear reader, don’t know that.