Liberals love to be victims. In fact, I'd say it's become a psychological problem for them, wanting to be victims. This is why pretty much every "hate crime" supposedly written on a restaurant receipt has turned out to be false, why so many black civil rights activists have been caught lying about police abuse, and why such a large number of rapes turns out to be false. The last example is an actor named Jessie Smollett.
Smollett is gay and black and appears on a pretty decent show called Empire. A few weeks back, he claimed to have been the victim of a hate crime in Chicago, but his claim didn't smell right from the get go. For starters, the claim didn't add up.
1. He claimed that he was randomly attacked by two white men who wore MAGA hats. They tied a rope around his neck, poured bleach on him, knocked him down and kicked him and beat him and yelled, "This is MAGA country" and then called him racist and anti-gay names.
2. BUT... Chicago is not MAGA country.
3. How did two random white guys looking to hurt some black guy know he was gay? What's more, this was supposedly a random attack, but it immediately came out that someone sent him anti-gay hatemail threatening to hurt him two days before. So suddenly, this random attack was connected with a premeditated crime? Those two things don't make sense together.
4. Nor did they manage to hurt him. His injuries were not consistent with an attack. One punch perhaps (he had a bruise on one cheek), but that was it. There was no evidence of bleach on his skin, not big cuts, nothing broken, no burns or tears on his skin. This is really nothing for two rednecks looking to genuinely hurt a black man. Interestingly, he would later start to claim that he "fought the f**k back" as well, but he lacks any evidence of fighting injuries.
5. Moreover, despite being in a heavily surveilled city, there was no evidence at all on video to support this. No camera captured the attack, no camera showed Smollett stumbling home, no camera showed the two attackers running off. No container of bleach or anything else was found. No one saw a thing.
6. He claimed to be on the phone with his manager at the time of the attack, but then refused to turn over phone records to support this, claiming privacy.
7. The MAGA part of the story wasn't added until later. So it was a hate crime but he forgot to mention the things they said to prove that until his second interview with the police? There's also some suggestion that his manager added the MAGA thing. And later, Mollette said he never said they wore a MAGA hat. So why did his manager say that?
8. He didn't call the cops for 40 minutes (he claims he didn't want to, but someone else did), but then when they met him at his apartment he still had the rope around his neck. Really? He later claimed he wanted them to see it. This is not at all normal behavior. Normal behavior would be to rip that off your neck. Leaving it there is unusual. Making this even less normal, why would he leave it there if he didn't want to call the cops? So he sat around for 40 minutes with this rope around his neck until someone else called the police but he claims he kept wearing it because he wanted the police to see it. Anyone see a problem with that?
9. As the days went on, he started giving inconsistent interviews. In these he complained that people didn't believe him. He cried about how he thought his life was in danger. And then he bragged about how he fought back and he wants gay people to know they aren't weak. This all reeked of an inconsistent story combined with activism.
10. Then a story came out that the police knew the identity of one of the "attackers." He's an extra on Empire. Suddenly, it's not so random anymore. At the same time, whispers began that Smollett's character was potentially getting written out of Empire and that Smollett may have done this to keep that from happening.
And now it gets good...
The police have been looking for the two white men for some time. Well, they found them. It turns out they are black. Very black. They are from Nigeria. They are brothers. They are extras on Empire. AND they are Smollett's friends. Smollett follows them on Instagram. Smollett works out with them at the gym.
Of course, none of the strangeness in this story or its inconsistencies stopped every celebrity in the world from offering their support to him and smearing the rest of us as racist, anti-gay bigots. Some of them, like Yahoo, have now entered the "confused" stage where they are pretending they have no idea what any of this could possibly mean. Soon it will all come out to the point that even the liberal celebrity world won't be able to deny what he did. Then I'm sure they'll feel sorry for him... that we are such bigots that he was forced to put himself through this. It's not his fault, you see, it's the pressure our racism causes. The one thing we won't get is an apology and an admission that maybe they're the bigots.
Thoughts?
Smollett is gay and black and appears on a pretty decent show called Empire. A few weeks back, he claimed to have been the victim of a hate crime in Chicago, but his claim didn't smell right from the get go. For starters, the claim didn't add up.
1. He claimed that he was randomly attacked by two white men who wore MAGA hats. They tied a rope around his neck, poured bleach on him, knocked him down and kicked him and beat him and yelled, "This is MAGA country" and then called him racist and anti-gay names.
2. BUT... Chicago is not MAGA country.
3. How did two random white guys looking to hurt some black guy know he was gay? What's more, this was supposedly a random attack, but it immediately came out that someone sent him anti-gay hatemail threatening to hurt him two days before. So suddenly, this random attack was connected with a premeditated crime? Those two things don't make sense together.
4. Nor did they manage to hurt him. His injuries were not consistent with an attack. One punch perhaps (he had a bruise on one cheek), but that was it. There was no evidence of bleach on his skin, not big cuts, nothing broken, no burns or tears on his skin. This is really nothing for two rednecks looking to genuinely hurt a black man. Interestingly, he would later start to claim that he "fought the f**k back" as well, but he lacks any evidence of fighting injuries.
5. Moreover, despite being in a heavily surveilled city, there was no evidence at all on video to support this. No camera captured the attack, no camera showed Smollett stumbling home, no camera showed the two attackers running off. No container of bleach or anything else was found. No one saw a thing.
6. He claimed to be on the phone with his manager at the time of the attack, but then refused to turn over phone records to support this, claiming privacy.
7. The MAGA part of the story wasn't added until later. So it was a hate crime but he forgot to mention the things they said to prove that until his second interview with the police? There's also some suggestion that his manager added the MAGA thing. And later, Mollette said he never said they wore a MAGA hat. So why did his manager say that?
8. He didn't call the cops for 40 minutes (he claims he didn't want to, but someone else did), but then when they met him at his apartment he still had the rope around his neck. Really? He later claimed he wanted them to see it. This is not at all normal behavior. Normal behavior would be to rip that off your neck. Leaving it there is unusual. Making this even less normal, why would he leave it there if he didn't want to call the cops? So he sat around for 40 minutes with this rope around his neck until someone else called the police but he claims he kept wearing it because he wanted the police to see it. Anyone see a problem with that?
9. As the days went on, he started giving inconsistent interviews. In these he complained that people didn't believe him. He cried about how he thought his life was in danger. And then he bragged about how he fought back and he wants gay people to know they aren't weak. This all reeked of an inconsistent story combined with activism.
10. Then a story came out that the police knew the identity of one of the "attackers." He's an extra on Empire. Suddenly, it's not so random anymore. At the same time, whispers began that Smollett's character was potentially getting written out of Empire and that Smollett may have done this to keep that from happening.
And now it gets good...
The police have been looking for the two white men for some time. Well, they found them. It turns out they are black. Very black. They are from Nigeria. They are brothers. They are extras on Empire. AND they are Smollett's friends. Smollett follows them on Instagram. Smollett works out with them at the gym.
Of course, none of the strangeness in this story or its inconsistencies stopped every celebrity in the world from offering their support to him and smearing the rest of us as racist, anti-gay bigots. Some of them, like Yahoo, have now entered the "confused" stage where they are pretending they have no idea what any of this could possibly mean. Soon it will all come out to the point that even the liberal celebrity world won't be able to deny what he did. Then I'm sure they'll feel sorry for him... that we are such bigots that he was forced to put himself through this. It's not his fault, you see, it's the pressure our racism causes. The one thing we won't get is an apology and an admission that maybe they're the bigots.
Thoughts?
18 comments:
BTW, it looks like both guys may be charged, which puts Smollett in an interesting position. Does he maintain the fiction even though he's no longer a victim of racism/homophobia and burn his friends, or does he admit that he staged it save his friends?
Will the two guys confess their part in the hoax in exchange for leniency? That would seem to be the final out. Then the story will disappear from the news never to be talked about again, just like all the other fake hate crime accusations.
Patriot, I think they are facing a real problem. Either they get charged with a very serious assault or they plead a conspiracy to file a fake police report. I think they take the latter and let Smollett deal with the consequences.
But you are correct, that the MSM and the left will want to bury this as deep as possible as quickly as possible because they can't keep taking hits like this.
In that, think about how badly things have gone for them of late. Especially with the addition of police body cams, their victim game is falling apart everywhere, and their claim of victimization is getting increasingly more theoretical and ephemeral.
P.S. Colin Kapernick settled his lawsuit today against the NFL. No one knows what they got, but I doubt it was much. The interesting point though is that while the left has been claiming all along that Kapernick is a hero because this isn't about money, it's about social justice, his settlement shows it was always about money.
So much for their hero and his ridiculous Nike slogan (no irony there) about giving up everything for what you believe. LOL!
That attack had all the hallmarks of a hoax from the start (activist victim, no witnesses, light injuries, inflammatory calling card).
The liberals won't get any mileage out of this horrible shooting in Illinois...the perp was a convicted felon from Mississippi, who legally wasn't supposed to have a gun. So all those Draconian gun laws in Illinois did nothing as usual. That's why we call them criminals.
The Chicago Police are really handling this well. They've said nothing against Smollett and continue to call him the victim, but they are circling him like a shark. Now they've arrested and questioned the two brothers, but then let them go. The Police said "new evidence" has emerged from those interviews, and their attorney is hinting that Smollett will have legal problems.
Smollett has hired a famous defense attorney, always a bad sign. He's also now spewing that anyone who doesn't believe him is racist. Yeah, that's it.
There is also now word that the police took a bottle of bleach from his own apartment.
Anthony, The whole thing struck me as suspicious right away.
I will be curious to see how it plays out.
Critch, To put a cynical spin on it, he's black so there won't be much coverage. The narrative on shooters is anti-gay, anti-woman white men with employment problems. Talking about a black shooter (or female shooters) doesn't serve the narrative.
Better to write stories about the Parkland kids and how they've changed the world.
It's now all over the papers that the brothers claimed they were paid to stage an attack. Whoops.
In similar news, I'm really enjoying the Colin Kapernick thing. He settled his lawsuit. That's all we know. Although, we can add some reasoned speculation:
1. He got some money.
2. He dropped all of his claims against the NFL
3. He will agree not to seek to return.
That's really it.
What this means is that he sold out his claim for money. Some hero.
Nevertheless, his supporters are desperately trying to claim he "won". To do this, they've pulled a dollar amount of $60-$80 million out of their butts. There is no way that's even close to true. A more likely settlement is somewhere between $7 and $14 million (or less than $5 million, which is likely the amount of the NFL's insurance policy). But even if it is $80 million... he still sold out.
Others think he's going to get a contract with a team now. There is no way. That exposes the NFL to reopening all this litigation the next time he doesn't like how he's being handled.
Others are claiming the settlement is an admission of guilt. Wrong again. I have never in my life seen a corporate settlement that admits anything.
Basically, their hero sold them out (for a second time now) and they can't handle that fact, so they are pretending that somehow this was an amazing victory... and they are inventing obviously false facts to make that happen.
Andrew,
The Smollett attack being fake is currently high or on top of all news websites including very liberal ones. They are detailing and condemning the hoax rather than reviewing their part in it. Standard practice. Nothing changes.
Colin K is immaterial IMHO. The kneeling thing is already largely dead. The second wave of kneelers were motivated by Trump's smack talking rather than police misconduct (which as I have said before the police have addressed to the satisfaction of most reasonable people, black or otherwise). As I noted almost a year ago the NFL subsequently hit kneelers hard enough to discourage them and normal fans didn't really rally around them.
http://commentaramapolitics.blogspot.com/2018/05/that-was-dumb.html
Tebow should have taught all involved that audiences will turn on players (and teams/owners) who want to champion their causes before the game.
While I agree the policy as written is muddy what the NFL expects of its players is clear. Guys who get creative will cost their teams money and maybe cost themselves jobs. That is a price few will be willing to pay.
END QUOTE
I suspect the Colin K settlement is the NFL trying to wipe out the last traces of a brief but unpleasant chapter and bring the focus back to the game.
Anthony, Sadly, I don't believe for a minute that there will be any self reflection. The standard response in these situations is:
1. Express outrage, condemn society and political opponents
2. Turn blind eye to all questions being asked... accuse doubters of racism
3. Express shock that something appears to be wrong. Not sure what's going on, but there's something not right here.
4. Without really admitting it was faked and while making it clear that these attacks are real and happen in impossibly large numbers, express shock that this person was driven to feel they had to do this.
5. Attack someone who points out that this was faked in hyperbolic language and make the whole issue about them.
6. Move on to next supporting next fake attack.
There's no genuine slef-evaluation in that process.
On Kapernick, I agree. His "issue" (i.e. him being blackballed) is dead and he's gone. There are only two players who still kneel and the networks don't show them, so no one cares. The league did divert $84 million to "social justice" causes, but that's been irrelevant.
Where I think there is an effect is...
1. Liberal sportswriters see him as a way to "liberate" blacks from the yolk of "rich white billionaires." They are all desperate to find some civil rights cause, and this is just the latest (prior failed causes: lack of black coaches, lack of black quarterbacks, lack of black general managers, lack of black owners, lack of openly gay players, crushing religious freaks like Tim Tebow, promoting unionization). So they see him as a way to self-aggrandize themselves. "I supported Jesus before he was Jesus! I made him!"
2. There is a group that is actively trying to destroy the NFL. Kapernick is the latest tool in their arsenal. Concussions were the tool before that. Pain pills before that.
3. Famous blacks like Lebron James and Serena Williams (and Nike) see Kapernick as a safe way to market to the angry black male market without turning off white America. Angry blacks see Kapernick as being "the things whites hate most", so supporting him is a way to show black nationalism. Yet, whites see Kapernick as just "some failed quarterback who became an ass to excuse his failures." So whites don't get too upset when he supports Kapernick. That makes him an easy choice to support.
Andrew,
Colin K seems like a guy who was somewhat sincere in his activism. He was 'woke' by a girlfriend by most accounts and protesting at a time when street protests were fairly common (more on that angle later).
The second wave of NFL protestors were not motivated by outrage about police treatment of blacks (at that point in time police departments had started addressing problems and consequently protests had shrunk down to a tiny fringe) but by Trump's taunts about athletes with big mouths being fired by their owners.
That is why IMHO there is a time gap between well populated street protests of blacks protesting what they view as police misconduct (a 2015-mid 2016 phenomena) and widespread incidents of black celebs protesting (2017 to the present).
I think international brands like Nike embraced Colin (eventually, long after his firing) because as you said, he is a safe symbol of anti-Trump 'rebellion' and big brands love to monetize such things.
Andrew, without trying to “beat a dead horse (actors career),” I have had a hunch that this was all set up by his manager. I believe I saw a selfie video made by the manager that showed him acting all ghetto because he was denied entrance to an airplane passenger ramp because he had the wrong ticket or something. He was filming all this and accusing the agents of racism because he was black as the reason they wouldn’t let him on the plane.
So with that mentality, I wouldn’t find it hard to have him come up with this as a way to put his client(s) in the national spotlight, knowing he would get cover from a compliant media and police force. Unfortunately, this wasn’t a weekly storyline on Empire, and it fell apart from the moment the actor strolled into the residence nonchalantly. Pretty poor acting skills!
What with the manager playing a central role in this hoax (on the phone at the time of the attack and then advising his client afterwards), it sure appears that we wind he was a key character in this episode of “Poor gay actor gets beat up by racist Trump supporters.”
No Emmy’s for them!
Seems like I always miss the good conversation starters. I had a long holiday weekend with the kids. Not entirely by choice; the district put parent/teacher conferences head of Presidents Day.
I see a lot of throwing things against the wall to see what might stick Smollett in the memory-hole. (Sorry about the mixed-metaphor.) There's been a round of "conservatives are gross for feeling vindicated." Some news types have suddenly decided to become skeptical of unnamed sources. A bunch of lefty outlets dangled Malia Obama's underage drinking in front of Twitter. Some are pointing to the President's remarks in January, where he condemned the incident, as evidence that he, too, was duped. There is the usual handwringing that the hoax hurts real victims of hate crime, with the implication that it'd be okay if it only hurt Trump supporters.
I agree, there is not going to be any self-reflection on the part of those who ate up the Smollett story. Ironically, being fooled by a hate-crime hoax only bolsters credibility among progressives. Their reputations are upheld by virtue signaling rather than credibility. It shows to other progressives that they are more committed to social justice than anything else, including facts. It's so convoluted that it's actually simple.
Either that, or they are simply people who took a completely different lesson from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" than the rest of us. Instead of learning that it's unwise to trick people, they instead learned that there could always be a wolf, no matter how many times the boy lied before. If irrational concern over wolves saves just one life, then it is worth it to be fooled a thousand times over.
tryanmax, There seems to be a lot of "expectant anger" ("IF this is true...), but of course, little in the way of any follow-up logic, like asking why this keeps happening on the left and asking if America really is as they say. Instead, there's a lot of "we know America is super racist, how will this affect the real victims?" The new line is "this will keep people from coming forward," which of course is a liberal defense mechanism to explain away the utter lack of evidence to support their beliefs. Indeed, rape, harassment, etc. we're told only get reported one in ten times because "victims are afraid." Bullship.
Oh, and no soon does this happen than we've moved on to another fake "customer wrote nasty message on receipt" story. None of these have been true. This one won't be either.
Post a Comment