Image 01 Image 03

Jussie Smollett Hoax Proves How Hard It Is To Change The Edifice Of (Leftist) Political Beliefs

Jussie Smollett Hoax Proves How Hard It Is To Change The Edifice Of (Leftist) Political Beliefs

From a BLM leader to CNN’s Oliver Darcy, coming to grips with the hoax being exposed is a tough thing.

I’ve often thought that, for most people, political belief is a strong edifice made of hundreds of thousands of bricks.

Note I didn’t wrote “political affiliation,” because a lot of people merely have a kneejerk affiliation that doesn’t amount to much of a belief system at all. For some of them, it might be made of one big brick which is something like “my parents believe this so I do too” or “everyone in my neighborhood or of my race believes this so I do too.”

This type of person could have a weak system that’s easily knocked down by information that challenges it, but the catch is that such people often are so uninterested in politics that they never even expose themselves to that information. Or some of them continue to care more about the opinions of others and are loathe to change their own because they see that as a betrayal of family or group.

But for those who have an actual belief system, it’s based on bit after bit of information the details of which are often imperfectly remembered but which all combine to form that edifice known as political belief.

And that in turn is why something like the revelation that Jussie Smollett perpetrated a hate crime hoax with the potential of causing riots and almost certainly motivated by Trump-hating animus is unlikely to matter to them at all.

Some, like Los Angeles BLM leader Melina Abdullah, will take the hardest left line and say that the police are lying, the evidence doesn’t matter, the jury system is rigged against black people, and Jussie spoke truth. But a lot more will probably rationalize it in the manner of CNN’s Oliver Darcy:

He complains that Sean Hannity, “and other bad faith media personalities on the right, used Smollett’s conviction to (predictably) attack the news media and aim to delegitimize the credibility of the entire press.”…

“Propagandists,” Darcy continues, “know that their power increases substantially when they can convince their audiences not to trust other sources of information. And so, Smollett’s case is very valuable to them.”

This is almost humorous to someone on the right, because of course it’s a good description of what the left does. But be not amused, because to Darcy’s audience this is a description of the right, and it gives them a way to dismiss Jussie Smollet as an exception to the rule they believe to be true, which is that such overtly racist attacks are real and are common in today’s America.

Darcy adds:

“When you cannot argue on the facts, it is much easier to dismiss a story in its entirety and go after the credibility of the press for reporting on it. It’s the timeless play — one that played on repeat during the Trump administration . . .”

So the message goes something like oopsies, the press made a teensy mistake regarding Smollett. It’s a one-off, an exception, but one that gives the always-nefarious right a golden opportunity to pounce and pretend that it means something when it doesn’t and when it’s the right that’s always lying.

That can persuade not just the stupid but many smart people, especially if not too many stories like Smollett’s come filtering through because their news sources fail to report them. Their brick edifice is made of many false “facts” that they “know” to be true. For them, it takes penetration by many many many such incidents as the Smollett story or one absolutely huge and sometimes personal incident, and even then it takes a willingness to say, “Hey, this thing I trusted to be true wasn’t true, and how many other things have I trusted in the past that weren’t true? I need to find out.”

Unless they take that last step and follow through, the edifice will stand.

[Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


After Jussie Smollett pulled off his race hoax, Jill Biden was so amazed at how it was supported and carried along by the media and how they made it all seem so real, that it encouraged her to believe that the media would likewise support her husband in pulling off a hoax of such grand proportions that people would actually believe that he was president of the United States.

    Milhouse in reply to Peabody. | December 18, 2021 at 7:22 pm

    He husband is president of the United States. Unfortunately that is not a hoax.

    And part of the reason he is president is that the news industry refused to report on his corruption, or on the strong evidence of that corruption that was found on Hunter’s laptop.

      Peabody in reply to Milhouse. | December 18, 2021 at 8:13 pm

      Biden cannot hold a news conference without the news media playing along and asking pretend questions for which he already has cards ahead of time with the answers. He cannot think on his feet. Hell, he can’t even think sitting down. Biden most likely has dementia and is not really in control and he most certainly is not running the country. The hoax is everyone pretending that he is.

    Jill Biden is not that deep of a thinker.

Smollett simply demonstrated the depths that the left will sink to push absolutely LUDICROUSLY unbelievable stories in the name of The Cause.

They’re desperate to now pretend that Smollett’s story is just a one-off, instead of simply one more bullshit hoax they pushed on us because it was Too Good To Check.

Smollett’s bullshit has made an awful lot of people stand up and question other racial crap that they might have previously simply accepted at face value.

    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | December 18, 2021 at 7:24 pm

    The point of this post is that apparently it hasn’t. You’d think it was, but they’re convinced it’s an exception. They don’t have to pretend; they actually believe it. They need to hear about a dozen or two dozen more exceptions, but they won’t.

While bias is intrinsic, prejudice is for-profit.


They are just testing to see how much they can get away with.

>> turns out it is more than anyone expected

“When you cannot argue on the facts, it is much easier to dismiss a story in its entirety and go after the credibility of the press for reporting on it. It’s the timeless play — one that played on repeat during the Trump administration . . .”

I thought the media continually lied throughout the Trump presidency, and even today continues to parrot debunked lies?

Liberals are incapable of or disinterested in critical thought. (They believe Critical Racist Theory is critical thinking. It’s not. It’s the antithesis of that.) So they just swallow whatever propaganda gets shoveled into their empty heads and twist themselves into pretzels to explain away any facts which don’t hew to their indoctrination. For example:

* “Juicy may have made this story up, but WE ALL KNOW Trump and his followers hate black and gay people and would’ve done this if they had a chance!”

* “Michael Brown may not have been shot in the back while his hands were up and he was begging don’t shoot, but WE ALL KNOW that cops are racists who hunt innocent black men for sport and gun them down like dogs, so we must defund the police and empty the prisons!”

* “It doesn’t matter that Christine Blasey Ford can’t prove she ever met Brett Kavanaugh or that she was at a party with him, WE ALL KNOW that privileged white preppies are gang rapists and abuse women and if allowed on SCOTUS he will usher in The Handmaid’s Tale and force his rape victims to bear his babies!” (I was unfriended by my girlfriend’s friend because I refused to condemn Kavanaugh solely because she had been assaulted by some other guy many years ago.)

Liberals feel like George Costanza that it’s not a lie if you feel it’s the truth and it doesn’t matter if any particular story is false because WE ALL KNOW that these things happen and to dismiss the liars is to erase the victims.

Or some such nonsense. I can’t imagine what the howling vortex of insanity that is the liberal mind(less) is like and I’m not going to drink the drain cleaner and bash myself in the head with a brick to get my brain into their waking state.

    Milhouse in reply to DirkBelig. | December 18, 2021 at 8:19 pm

    This is exactly it.

    Well put. A little off topic … I had a thought today that liberals are children who have not grown up, since they appear to think that money grows on trees, My wife reminded that very many years ago she went to the ATM to get some cash with a young daughter in the car who asked why we had to go to work when she can just go to that thing on the wall to get money.. Hmm.

    navyvet in reply to DirkBelig. | December 19, 2021 at 8:57 am

    “We choose truth over facts.”

    — Joe Biden

January 2019, I witnessed a few of my lefty friends start “the turn”. But those who weren’t affected by Sandmann and Smollett are riding the social justice express to its most remote terminus.

Something amazing to think about:

A list of ages of important American Revolution characters on July 4, 1776:

Andrew Jackson, 9
(Major) Thomas Young, 12
Deborah Sampson, 15
James Armistead, 15
Joseph Plumb Martin, 15
Peter Salem, 16**
Peggy Shippen, 16
Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Henry Lee III, 20
Gilbert Stuart, 20
John Trumbull, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
John Marshall, 20
Nathan Hale, 21
Banastre Tarleton, 21
Alexander Hamilton, 21**
Benjamin Tallmadge, 22
Robert Townsend, 22
George Rodgers Clark, 23
David Humphreys, 23
Gouveneur Morris, 24
Betsy Ross, 24
William Washington, 24
James Madison, 25
Henry Knox, 25
John Andre, 26
Thomas Lynch, Jr., 26*
Edward Rutledge, 26*
Abraham Woodhull, 26
Isaiah Thomas, 27
George Walton, 27* **
John Paul Jones, 28
Bernardo de Galvez, 29
Thomas Heyward, Jr., 29*
Robert R. Livingston, 29
John Jay, 30
Tadeusz Kosciuszko, 30
Benjamin Rush, 30*
Abigail Adams, 31
John Barry, 31
Elbridge Gerry, 31*
Casimir Pulaski, 31
Anthony Wayne, 31
Joseph Brant, 33
Nathanael Greene, 33
Thomas Jefferson, 33*
Thomas Stone, 33* **
William Hooper, 34*
Arthur Middleton, 34*
James Wilson, 34* **
Benedict Arnold, 35
Samuel Chase, 35*
Thomas Knowlton, 35
William Paca, 35*
John Penn, 35*
Hercules Mulligan, 36
Andrew Pickens, 36
Haym Solomon, 36
John Sullivan, 36
George Clymer, 37*
Charles Cornwallis, 37
Thomas Nelson, Jr., 37*
Ethan Allen, 38
Charles Carroll, 38*
King George III, 38
Francis Hopkinson, 38*
Carter Braxton, 39*
George Clinton, 39
John Hancock, 39*
Daniel Morgan, 39
Thomas Paine, 39
Patrick Henry, 40
Enoch Poor, 40
John Adams, 40*
Daniel Boone, 41
William Floyd, 41^
Button Gwinnett, 41* **
John Lamb, 41**
Francis Lightfoot Lee, 41*
Paul Revere, 41
Thomas Sumter, 41
Robert Morris, 42*
Thomas McKean, 42*
George Read, 42*
John Dickinson, 43
John Glover, 43
Benjamin Edes, 43
Samuel Huntington, 44*
Richard Henry Lee, 44*
Charles Lee, 44
Francis Marion, 44
Lord North, 44
George Washington, 44
Joseph Galloway, 45
Robert Treat Paine, 45*
Friedrich von Steuben, 45
Richard Stockton, 45*
Martha Washington, 45
William Williams, 45*
(Dr.) Thomas Young, 45
Josiah Bartlett, 46*
Henry Clinton, 46
Joseph Hewes, 46*
William Howe, 46
George Ross, 46*
William Whipple, 46*
Caesar Rodney, 47*
John Stark, 47
Mercy Otis Warren, 47
William Ellery, 48*
Horatio Gates, 48
Artemas Ward, 48
Oliver Wolcott, 49*
Abraham Clark, 50*
Benjamin Harrison, 50*
Lewis Morris, 50*
Lord Stirling, 50
George Wythe, 50* **
Guy Carleton, 51
John Morton, 51* **
Comte de Rochambeau, 51
Lyman Hall, 52*
James Rivington, 52**
Samuel Adams, 53*
Comte de Grasse, 53
John Witherspoon, 53*
John Burgoyne, 54
Johann de Kalb, 55
Roger Sherman, 55*
Thomas Gage, 56
James Smith, 56*
Israel Putnam, 58
Comte de Vergennes, 58
Lewis Nicola, 59**
George Germain, 60
Philip Livingston, 60*
George Taylor, 60* **
Matthew Thornton, 62*
Francis Lewis, 63*
John Hart, 65* **
Stephen Hopkins, 69*
Benjamin Franklin, 70*
Samuel Whittemore, 81

*An asterisk signifies that the individual was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
**A double asterisk means that there is evidence that the person’s age is not precise, or only a birth year is known.

“…{A]nd are loathe to change their own….” Should be “loath” to change their own… ” Loathe” is a verb,

“Their brick edifice is made of many false “facts” that they “know” to be true..”

THAT is the core argument to my philosophy: none of us “know” anything. We shape what we “know” by what we want to believe. We only “know” things when we stop asking questions. How embarrassing is it to be PROVEN wrong while passionately arguing about something you “know” to be a fact? That doesn’t happen when you don’t “know” anything. Why even have conversations if everyone “knows” everything? It is this fear that allows us to be trapped in our various echo chambers and doomed to a life in a maze forever choosing the path of least resistance, the lesser of two evils. We choose to be ignorant to the point where we don’t know we are in a maze. We are.

It is important to acknowledge that we don’t need to “know” anything. But we better get a very good handle on why we believe what we believe. We may be surprised to discover that almost ALL Americans share same our core values that lie at the foundation of a free civilization.

Liberal playbook: 109. Liberals are immune to facts. No Photos or documents or proof has any influence on liberals. Their reality cannot be altered. AKA useful idiots.

The proper Leftist/Liberal response to the absolute, undeniable, 100% proof that Smollet made it all up should have been that he was wrong but he did it for the right reason so that’s okay.

Unfortunately, the leftist media and BLM were so far into the hole that they just have to keep digging no matter how bad it makes them look. If the rest of the world is pointing at them and saying the king has no clothes, it doesn’t make them wrong or bad. Being right (small r) is never wrong or bad.

The problem is bigger though. Everything on the Left becomes a religious belief. Try having a conversation about racism, global warming, Trump, vaccines, etc. Blind faith is the signature of the Left and that big brick wall is impenetrable.

The Far Left Chicago New Readers were almost in tears reading the Juicy verdict. They made no comments and quickly switched to the next story.

It took many years for me to discover that Orwell already had a term for the premature truncation of the logical chain, meant to prevent the thinker from coming to a politically-incorrect conclusion (that is also true):


Perfect example of “fake but accurate” for the left.