Jussie Smollet as Mayella Ewell or The Democrat Playbook Never Changes


Mayella Ewell: I got somethin’ to say. And then I ain’t gonna say no more. He took advantage of me. An’ if you fine, fancy gentlemen ain’t gonna do nothin’ about it, then you’re just a bunch of lousy, yella, stinkin’ cowards, the – the whole bunch of ya, and your fancy airs don’t come to nothin’. Your Ma’am’in’ and your Miss Mayellarin’ – it don’t come to nothin’, Mr. Finch, not… no.

To Kill a Mockingbird 1962

In the classic movie adaption of the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, an all white jury convicts Tom Robinson of the crime of attempting to rape Mayella Ewell. The films makes it clear they understand that Mr. Robinson wasn’t physically capable of committing the crime, and that the facts are consistent Miss Ewell lying about both the incident involving Mr. Robinson and the source of her subsequent injuries.

Jet the jury convicts Mr. Robinson not only because the accusations fit their existing prejudices but they understand that to suggest in public that they believe a black man instead of a white woman might mark them as outside of their community beliefs and norms. They would been considered, in the parlance of the time, “nigger-lovers” just as Atticus Finch was for daring to defend Mr. Robinson.


While a work of fiction this repented something that was not irregular in the solid Democrat south. As accusation against the black community in general and a black person in particular was the quickest way to deflect blame and a generalization of the danger posed by the black community, even an exaggerated and nonsensical one, was an easy way for a Democrat to gain press, credibility and clout. The facts didn’t matter, the reality didn’t matter Democrat party members regularly used this playbook because it worked and people played along because they knew that to be tagged by the community as a “Nigger lover” in the Jim Crow solid Democrat south would be the end of them both socially and professionally and few had the courage to not care.

And that brings us to Jussie Smollet

If you look at the facts, the idea of faking a hate crime against Trump supporters in Chicago is one of the stupidest things you could do. You live in a society where video surveillance is ubiquitous so said attackers would be caught on film somewhere, you choose a community where Trump isn’t all that popular and that the wearing of a MAGA hat is more likely to make you the victim rather than the perpetrator of violence. You choose as your fake attackers people that you know and can be traced to you and then to top it all off, you keep your sandwich as you enter your building as if nothing was wrong. As the Chicks on the right put it:


So this guy managed to hold on to his PHONE and a SUBWAY SANDWICH as two hateful white supremacists tied a noose around his neck, broke his rib, and poured bleach all over him?
Got it.
He must have been REALLY hungry for that sandwich, huh? 


Jussie Smollett Managed To Keep Ahold Of His Sandwich Throughout HATE CRIME Attack

Given all of these facts, it doesn’t seem rational that Jussie Smollet thought he would get away with it but Jussie Smollet was being completely rational.

He knew his community, the solid Democrat liberal/Hollywood/Media left. He knew their prejudices and counted on him backing up his story because it fit everything they believed. He counted on them persisting in playing this up as a hate crime because to question it would place them in alliance with White Straight Donald Trump supports in MAGA hats, the group most hated by his community and thus the cries of outrage came.

The Solid Democrat media went all in:

The Solid Democrat celebrities and Solid Democrat network shows went all in

And of course Democrat pols like Pelosi Sanders and Booker and more went all in just.  And when the son of the President questioned the facts in the case, what was the headline at the Mercury News?:


Is Donald Trump Jr. promoting a Jussie Smollett conspiracy theory?
President’s son seems to believe the ‘Empire’ star’s attack is a hoax

Now the various people above could have simply remained silent rather than going on in on this hoax, but while silence might have protected their credibility it would have marked them as outside the beliefs and norms of their community, the Solid Democrat Liberal Media/Celebrity/Cultural left. The consequences of being tarred as “Homphobic” “Racist”, “Maga Lovers” or Trump Fans” far outweighed any value that that personal credibility or honor might convey.

Jussie Smollett lawyers, you know the ones he’s denied hiring may issue adamant denials that this is a hoax but he knows he’s in trouble both professionally for making his allies look like fools and legally as the Chicago police don’t like being played.

But as for the rest of the Solid Democrat Media/Hollywood/Cultural left pols and celebs are concerned they will be ready, willing and able to go all in again on the next MAGA crime hoax because they know that their current embarrassment isn’t a failure, for them it’s the small price they pay to make sure they aren’t blacklisted socially and professionally.

The adjectives might have changed in 70-100 years but the Democrat playbook remains exactly the same.

Note: Some might object to me using the actual phrase in parlance at the time but I think the best way to convey the point I’m making is to address the past as it was without sanitation.

Update: Stacy McCain who has some experience of the south is more delicate than me on the historical parlance and attitudes of the time:


There is an 11-letter hyphenated compound that, in the South in the old days, was perhaps the foulest insult imaginable. The French phrase Amis des Noirs might be the most acceptable euphemistic substitute to describe white people who exhibited unusual sympathy toward African-Americans, an attitude considered philanthropic in 18th-century France, but less so in the Deep South circa 1964.
Have I ever mentioned that I’m from Georgia, and that when I was in second grade, 
Lester Maddox was elected our governor? So whenever I hear some allegedly clever liberal speak of “racism” or “white supremacy” in America now, it offends me because it insults my intelligence.
Buddy, I know what real racism looks like, and this ain’t it, OK?

He in a piece at the Spectator notes that there won’t be any consequences for folks like Ellen Page or Stephen Colbert:

This was either deliberate slander, or evidence of insuperable stupidity, but neither Colbert nor Page have acknowledged any error, because they don’t have to. Presumably, the advertisers and executives at CBS have no problem paying Colbert to falsely blame Republicans for a “hate crime” that turns out to be a hoax, and Page knows that every liberal in Hollywood will applaud her “courage” for insulting the vice president.


He’s actually wrong, it wasn’t slander or stupidity, it was them making sure that nobody interpreted their silence as the being “maga-lovers”

Update 2: Until a few minutes ago you couldn’t see this article on facebook calling the hoax what it was but now that the dam has broken it’s unblocked but the author Rod Dreher has had enough:


I didn’t much use my Facebook account, so it wasn’t a big deal to delete it, which I did this morning after seeing what Team Zuckerberg did. I invite all of you to consider what it means when Facebook will prevent its users from discussing facts and drawing conclusions that do not reflect well on preferred progressive narratives.

What it means is that facebook wants to make sure that they won’t accomodate “maga-lovers” untill it’s absolutely necessary.

I never joined facebook but if the post you’re now reading doesn’t get blocked by them I’d be shocked

This site is paid for by you. If you think what we do worthwhile please consider subscribing to help keep our writers and the bills paid.
Choose a Subscription level
Of course one time Tip jar hits and always welcome too.