Orwellian intention in the Huckabee-Sanders video

Even *More lies* in doctored video~ a Palmer Report echo

"..‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth'.” — George Orwell, 1984

In her most recent outrage against common sense and the First Amendment, Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted this week: “We stand by our decision to revoke [Jim Acosta’s] hard pass. We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video.” The video Sanders alludes to, as it happens, was doctored, unconvincingly, to create the illusion that CNN’s Jim Acosta (jesuisJimAcosta!)  assaulted a White House staffer as she was attempting to grab his microphone away from him during a tRump press conference.

Actual un-retouched footage from various angles contradicts Sanders’ video, giving the lie to the entire squalid rationale. 

While the provenance of Sanders’ spurious video is still under dispute (at one point it passed through the hands of (the alt-right) InfoWars), its nefarious and quite possibly unlawful intent is not: 

it was meant to pervert Acosta’s constitutionally sanctioned right to ask the “president” (aka Donald tRump) a legitimate question.

In the Orwell prophetic classic, 1984, we are introduced to the concept of “doublethink,” a word now in common coin, by the book itself. To again quote 1984: “All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.”

The whole sordid, solipsistic, White House spin on the Jim Acosta (jesuisJimAcosta! encore!) “assault” affair positively reeks of Orwellian doublethink. We are once again called upon to disbelieve the evidence of our eyes and our ears and, through a “series of victories over our own memories,” but to believe, in their place, the word of this gaslighting, and disingenuous and corrupt tRump administration.

George Orwell Resurgence - Those of Us Forewarned were Forearmed

“The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Those of us who read George Orwell's now classic novel about the future (written in late 1940s) are not really surprised about the extent of electronic surveillance in our everyday lives.  We were forewarned about this impending intrusion when Orwell described the phenomenon of "big brother", now a cliche and euphemism for a mythical totalitarian government watching our every move.

So, now Americans are being told what we already knew was true.  Our lives are not private.  In fact, there's very little an ordinary citizen can do these days without some marketing firm catching on and trying to sell stuff related to what is known about us. Amazon.com sends me messages with lists of books they know I'm interested in reading. Talbots sends me sales messages about cloths I like to buy, with pictured fashions worn by advertising models who are about my size.  When I click on an Internet travel site, my email receives multiple 2 for 1 deals, promoting cruise ships.  If my husband and I were ever to be late with a federal tax payment to the Internal Revenue Service, do ya' think we'd hear about it?  Hello?

Now, some Americans are shocked because they're learning about what most of us already knew.  We're under surveillance.  Our phone calls may be monitored for security reasons.  

Moreover, the current controversy about electronic surveillance has caused a resurgence of sales of Orwell's classic describing a future phenomenon, set in the year 1984.  LA Times reports that sales of "1984", which concerns a discontented propagandist working for the Ministry of Truth in a time of endless war, are up 5,771 percent as of Tuesday morning.

But "1984" is not the future anymore.  It's now.  

Suspicions confirmed. Learning what we already know is true, is like Orwell's doublethink, described in "1984":  “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” 

― George Orwell, 1984

These contradictory beliefs are (a) Americans don't like to have "big brother" intruding in our everyday lives; and (b) Americans want assurance that National Security is preventing us from the horror of terrorist acts.  These are not mutually exclusive concepts. A trade off for improving national security means some form of big brother will be evident in our everyday lives. 

In other words, do you want to be the first person who flies in an airplane where the passengers were only selectively screened? 

Hopefully, Orwell's estate continues to collect copyright royalties on the sales of his classic books.  He deserves credit for inoculating those of us who read "1984" and "Animal Farm", by preparing us for today's "new normal".  If we want our lives to be "normal" (whatever that may mean) then we must accept a privacy trade off.  As Orwell wrote prophetically in the 1940s:

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness (ie: national security and safety) is (are) better.” ― George Orwell, 1984