A Word for Dangerous, Illogical Thoughts
Doublethink • noun • (duhb-uhl thingk)
Definition: a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas
Origin: English
To help sustain and grow The Word with Barrett Holmes Pitner we have introduced a subscription option to the newsletter. Subscribers will allow us to continue producing The Word, and create exciting new content including podcasts and new newsletters.
Subscriptions start at $5 a month, and if you would like to give more you can sign up as a Founding Member and name your price.
We really enjoy bringing you The Word each week and we thank you for supporting our work.
Pre-orders for Barrett Holmes Pitner’s book THE CRIME WITHOUT A NAME are now available. You can place those orders through your local independent bookseller, or any of the following: Bookshop.org | Amazon.com | Barnes and Noble
In the last two weeks, America has had two significant mass shootings: first in Atlanta, Georgia and second in Boulder, Colorado. Thanks to the Biden administration’s implementation of robust COVID-19 vaccination efforts, more and more Americans are leaving their homes and we can envision a post-COVID-19 world. However, as we work to solve a deadly pandemic, we have been reminded of our society’s propensity to randomly kill Americans en masse.
Our news has now been consumed with discussions about gun violence and domestic terrorism, but the discussions in America remain absurd because our society tries to simultaneously believe in two contradictory ideas.
Americans want to remain shocked that a random, senseless act of gun violence occurred, while also not surprised because this violence has been our norm for many years. We know that we live in a society that encourages gun ownership and leaves all Americans defenseless against domestic terrorist attacks, yet we also want to remain shocked and outraged when a random American decides to kill people at a grocery store or place of business. These are two contradictory ideas that we are encouraged to believe both are true. In normal, day-to-day English, we do not have a word for this dynamic, but dystopian fiction does.
In George Orwell’s 1984, he coined this dynamic as “doublethink.” Doublethink requires using logic against logic and/or suspending disbelief in the contradiction. The motto of the authoritarian government of Orwell’s dystopian novel was “War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength.”
The language of Orwell is not too dissimilar from the language of the National Rifle Association, the Republican Party, and their supporters. Conservative pundits and defenders of the second amendment often claim unending gun violence is the price we must pay for our freedom. Similarly, they argue that the removal of guns would equate to tyranny. According to them, the absence of weapons of terror equates to an absence of freedom. This is an example of using logic against logic. In an Orwellian sense, their statement equates to TERRORISM = FREEDOM. This is doublethink, and it has been the American norm for a very long time.
The First Amendment & Doublethink
The United States’ interpretation of freedom of speech has evolved over time, but a Supreme Court decision from 1969 still shapes America’s current interpretation of free speech.
In 1964, Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg invited a television news crew to attend a KKK rally, and at this rally Brandenburg said, “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”
After Brandenburg’s language became known, Ohio determined that his dangerous, hate-filled rhetoric did not constitute protected speech under the first amendment, and he was charged and convicted of “advocating violence” under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute. Brandenburg appealed the decision and in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court sided with Brandenburg.
To justify their decision, the justices created a new standard for free speech in America called “imminent lawless action.” Since Brandenburg did not leave his KKK rally and inflict violence on others, the Supreme Court determined that his language was essentially harmless and therefore should be protected.
This decision is ridiculous and absurd, and it is most certainly dangerous speech and doublespeak.
Brandenburg was an unabashed member of a terrorist group and at one of the said group’s events, he expressed a desire to implement the terrorism that is his group’s stated purpose. Additionally, the KKK is a national organization, and during the 1960s, Black Americans and their white Americans allies had been terrorized and killed for the very motives that Brandenburg expressed. Brandenburg might not have immediately inflicted terror, but the normalization and condoning of white terrorism only resulted in more terror.
This decision is doublethink because it requires one to suspend their disbelief in the contradiction. Brandenburg aspires to inflict terror upon others and take away their freedom, and his argument is that denying him the right to advocate for terrorism equates to a denial of his freedom. In order to defend Brandenburg, you have to use logic against logic, suspend your disbelief in the contradiction, and simultaneously believe in two contradictory ideas.
At a foundational level, America has always professed doublethink. We have a democracy dependent on enslavement and oppression. After chattel slavery was abolished, America has attempted to create a democracy dependent on voter suppression. Just this week, Georgia Republicans passed new legislation reminiscent of America’s Jim Crow apartheid that will make it harder for Georgians to vote. America’s “democratic” norm has always been one that prevents people of color from voting, and this dystopian norm holds true today.
America claims that all men are created equal while at the same time saying that non-Europeans are a lesser form of humanity. America has always spoken, thought, and acted upon doublethink because doublethink empowers white supremacy.
America’s doublethink approach to the first and second amendment has always resulted in a dystopian status quo, and more and more Americans are recognizing this tragic reality today.
The Second Amendment & Doublethink
It is well-documented that the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party became major advocates of gun control and regulations once the Black Panther Party and other civil rights groups advocated for Black Americans to possess guns as a means of protection. America’s discussion regarding gun rights has never been one about whether all Americans should or should not be able to possess guns, but instead a discussion about ensuring that white Americans have a greater access to guns than other Americans.
The NRA and the Republican Party fear that gun regulations will remove guns from white Americans, who overwhelmingly make up their supporters. Frequently, gun rights defenders argue that taking away their guns would equate to tyranny, and now we are back to the illogic of Brandenburg v. Ohio. Like Brandenburg, these Americans argue that the inability for them to wage terror equates to an absence of freedom.
This is again doublethink, and supporters of the second amendment frequently use logic against logic to support their position. An example of their doublethink rhetoric would be the Republican talking point of “the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This logic is “bad stops good,” but we all know that in these instances the bad guy shoots first. The entire idea is premised on letting the bad guy get the first shot, therefore the good guy only stops him after the terrorism has occurred. This “logic” is illogical and is an example of using logic against itself.
The American doublethink logic debate of gun rights dates back to before the Civil War. In the case, Nunn v. State of Georgia (1846), Hawkins H. Nunn argued that allowing citizens to openly carry firearms created a safe environment and that a ban on handguns was unconstitutional. In 1837, Georgia had passed a law banning certain weapons including some guns. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed with this argument and overturned the state’s weapons ban.
This ruling remains influential today and has been used to overturn various attempts to ban weapons. However, what people ignore about Nunn v. State of Georgia is that Georgia could not exist without weapons because white Americans needed to terrorize the enslaved population that represented nearly half of the state’s population to keep the racial hierarchy intact.
A ban on weapons amidst a society that depends on inflicting terror on people of color created an unregulated weapons marketplace. People illegally obtained guns, and their illegality meant that people had to hide their weapons. This created an environment where terrorism could happen anywhere at any time. White Georgians used weapons to terrorize Black Americans, but they also turned their weapons on white Americans too. White Americans could pull out their guns and shoot random people because they had a bad day, were drunk, felt someone had cheated at cards, or as a “cure” for their sex addiction.
This environment awash with guns made society incredibly dangerous, so in Nunn v. State of Georgia, they argued that allowing people to openly carry guns would make people safer. White Georgians could still use their guns to terrorize Black Americans, but now the “good guy” with the gun could believe that he could stop the “bad guy” with the gun.
If all white Americans could legally carry guns and they could see each other's guns, and Black Americans could not have any guns, then their state could be “safe.” Again terror and freedom are interwoven, logic is used against logic, and the absence of terror is not even considered an option.
In America, doublethink represents the thoughts that guided Brandenburg’s words and our society’s defense of his dangerous language. After America uses doublethink to protect Brandenburg’s words, we use it again to protect the terror men like him and other Americans aspire to and eventually do inflict with deadly weapons. America’s systemic illogic has left us defenseless against the terror we inflict upon ourselves, and tragically we are more capable of defending the right to randomly murder Americans than creating solutions.
This week please think about examples of doublethink in your day-to-day life, and imagine what our lives could look like if our society stopped using logic against logic. What would it mean to abolish and reconstruct American norms? What would America look like in a post-gun society? How could America responsibly regulate speech to promote freedom and prevent white ethnocidal terrorism? What would America look like if terror and freedom were no longer interwoven?
