new

Behind the Scenes, It’s Clear Chicago Media and Police Doubt Jussie Smollett’s Story

I can’t recall a large crime story where there was a bigger gap between what the police and media are saying publicly, and what they expressing behind the scenes, than the saga involving the recent alleged hate crime against actor Jussie Smollett. Similarly, there may not be a story where you can tell more by what has not happened, in comparison to what actually has occurred.

The current public stance of the Chicago police is that earlier this month, at 2 a.m. on a very cold Chicago night, Smollett was the victim of what appears to be a heinous hate crime where he was physically attacked by two men, and humiliated due to his race, homosexuality, and possibly his opposition to President Donald Trump. The Chicago media, in official reports, has largely treated that narrative as legitimate, while chronicling the complete lack of suspects and corroborating evidence as more of a frustration than any indication that something else might be going on here.

Behind the scenes, however, based on conversations I have had with multiple people covering the story, there is a radically different take on what really did happen to Smollett. In short, there is near unanimity among police sources that Smollett’s story is very likely not true. And that even the media outlets still regurgitating the current “party line” don’t really believe it.

In my experience, most people are very bad at reading the tea leaves in these types of situations, and it often leads to very inaccurate interpretations of what is really going on. This case has several important elements which, if you know what to look for, make evaluating the actions of the police and news media really rather easy.

The first thing you need to understand about this situation is that, because of Smollett’s persona and the nature of his allegation, no one in law enforcement or the news media wants any part of publicly questioning his story. Everyone knows that if they make any sort of negative implication against a black, gay, liberal, celebrity, victim of a horrible hate crime, that they will be roundly and severely attacked, regardless of whether they turn out to be correct.

As a conservative, I look at this as his Political Correctness Force Field. Smollett’s protection here is literally about as strong as it gets, especially in Chicago, a city that has a large black population and is extremely liberal.

So, in this hyper-sensitive media environment, any sort of deviation from the accepted storyline by the police or the news media, much like if your seven-year-old kid is showing subtle signs they no longer believe in Santa Claus, must be given exponentially greater significance than it normally would. Here, both the police and news media in Chicago have provided plenty of those types of veiled indications, both publicly and privately.

Among other things, the police have made it very clear they have not yet found any proof of an attack, despite having almost all of Smollett’s movements on surveillance video. They have disclosed that Smollett would not give over his cell phone to verify his timeline of events. They even published photos of “persons of interest” that they had to know were going to be universally mocked for being obviously irrelevant.

In my view, none of those important revelations would have been made public in the way that they were, unless there was extreme suspicion within the police force that Smollett’s story was not fully accurate.

By extension, media figures would not be being told by their police sources, as I have been told is currently happening both routinely and with vigor, that the authorities are acting on the assumption that they will never find any evidence to fully substantiate Smollett’s story. This isn’t just happening via idle speculation either, the police are doing so with great specificity, even including an alternative theory for what really happened (current attempts to find the origin of the rope found around Smollett’s neck long after the event was over are believed to be the most likely game-changer, if there ever is one in this case).

As for the Chicago media, a couple of local television reporters are apparently using Twitter as a confessional for information about the case that their stations currently fear to air. Rob Elgas of the Chicago ABC affiliate, and Rafer Weigel of the Fox station (which carries Smollett’s show Empire) have continually updated the developments, or lack thereof, in a way that paints a much different picture from the one that viewers would see on an actual newscast.

It is very obvious that if one major news outlet in Chicago had the guts to be the first to openly discredit Smollett’s story, the others would soon follow the leader. But because the risk of being wrong in this situation (see Smollett’s PC Force Field), there is just no incentive to take that dive until and unless the police finally make a definitive statement.

I have written previously about my skepticism about the case, and speculated that this story would quickly disappear because there is no way it would get conclusively solved, and no one in authority will have any appetite for the perils of debunking a story from someone like Smollett. However, Weigel tweeted out some rather candid thoughts yesterday which gave me slight hope that maybe we will actually get to the truth of this matter (though, if that truth is indeed as those closest to the story suspect that it is, the news cycle created by that shocking disclosure will probably be exceedingly short).

There is something wrong with african languages

We all know that some languages are ''weird'' to us. In my opinion English is a strange language. One of the reasons why I think this is because of the way English people use ''do''. You may say, ''don't do that.'' But you just said ''do'' twice. Why could you not just say ''do not that'', or ''don't that''? Other than that English is fine. Conclusion: other people's languages are weird to us because we didn't grow up with it.

But now look at African languages. When compared with the rest of the world they are uniform and possess a ''sameness'' which strikes me as robotic and stagnant. Let me demonstrate by showing you what Non-African looks like compared to African:

We will start with Asian languages. They are highly phonetically diverse. Some have CV syllable type only (Japanese), which means that for the most part they only allow syllables to end in a vowel, no consonant clusters. Others like Tibetan have lots and lots of consonants clusters and endings. See here:

Tibetan chants:

'GANG GI THUG JE DE WA CHHEN PÖI YING'

'KU SUM GO PHANG CHHOG KYANG KÄ CHIG LA'

'TSÖL DZÄ LA MA RIN CHHEN TA BÜI KU'

'DOR JE CHÄN ZHAB PÄ MOR CHHAG TSHÄL LO'

Notice ''DOR'', ''ZHAB'', ''TSHÄL'', ''CHIG'', and ''TSÖL''.

Tibetan words/phrases: Khedrand ming Gangyin? (What is your name), khye-rang yin-ji-kay gyab thub gi yo pe? (Can you speak English?), gyur-tog (change), thug-je (compassion), tson-pa (diligence), dru (boat), khor-sum (tricycle).

As you can see, Tibetan allows many types of syllables, just like English. It has many vowels, 8 to be exact (Standard Tibetan - Wikipedia).

Now let's take a look at the Mongolian language:

Modern Khalkha mongolian has 14 vowels. Here are a few mongolian sentences-

'bid-nij uulz-san ter sajhan zaluu-gaas c'

'Dor bagš maan'

'ter hel-eh-güj-geer üün-ijg bic-sen šüü'

Mongolian allows words to end in the r sound and is syllabically diverse, like Tibetan. Korean, Khmer, and Cantonese are all the same way-

Khmer:

'mnoussa teangoasa kaetamk mean seripheap ning pheap smae knea knong setthi ning sechakdeithlaithnaur. mnoussa krobroub sotthote mean vichearonanhnhean ning satesambochonhnh haey trauv br pru td champoh knea towvinhtowmk knong smartei reaban knea chea bangobaaun.'

Korean (read Korean phonology - Wikipedia

'Modeun Ingan-eun Tae-eonal ttaebuteo Jayuroumyeo Geu Jon-eomgwa Gwonrie Iss-eo Dongdeunghada. Ingan-eun Cheonbujeog-euro Iseong-gwa Yangsim-eul Bu-yeobad-ass-eumyeo Seoro Hyungje-ae-ui Jeongsin-euro Haengdongha-yeo-yahanda.'

Cantonese:

'Yan6yan6 saang1cheut1 lai4 jau6hai6 ji6yau4 ge3, hai2 joon1yim4 toong4 koon4lei5 seuhng6 yat1leuht6 ping4dang2. Keuhi5dei6 geuhi6yau5 lei5sing3 toong4 leuhng4sam1, yi4che3 ying1goi1 yoong6 hing1dai6gaan1 ge3 gwaan1hai6 lai6 woo6seuhng1 deuhi3doi6.'

Now finally we can move on to African languages-

Virtually EVERY SINGLE african language has a 5-7 ''Italian'' vowel system of i, e, u, o, and a, with generally no consonant clusters allowed, and no closed syllables. Here is Zulu:

''Thina, bantu baseNingizimu Afrika,''
''Siyakukhumbula ukucekelwa phansi kwamalungelo okwenzeka eminyakeni eyadlula; ''
''Sibungaza labo abahluphekela ubulungiswa nenkululeko kulo mhlaba wethu; ''
''Sihlonipha labo abasebenzela ukwakha nokuthuthukisa izwe lethu; futhi ''
''Sikholelwa ekutheni iNingizimu Afrika ingeyabo bonke abahlala kuyo, sibumbene nakuba singafani.''

Notes: dl is not a consonant cluster, and nt is not considered one.

Swahili:

'Watu wote wamezaliwa huru, hadhi na haki zao ni sawa. Wote wamejaliwa akili na dhamiri, hivyo yapasa watendeane kindugu.'

Xhosa:

'Nkosi, sikelel' iAfrika;'
'Maluphakamis' uphondo lwayo;'
'Yiva imithandazo yethu'
'Nkosi sikelela, thina lusapho lwayo.'

Translation:

Lord, bless Africa;
May her horn rise high up;
Hear Thou our prayers
Lord, bless us, your family.

Kongo:

'Bantu nyonso, na mbutukulu kevwandaka na kimpwanza ya bawu, ngenda mpe baluve ya mutindu mosi. Mayela na mbanzulu je na bawu, ni yawu yina bafwana kusalasana na bumpangi.'

Tsonga:

'Vanhu hinkwavo va tswariwa va tshunxekile naswona va ringanile eka tifanelo na xindzhuti. Va havaxerile miehleketo na tshiriti kumbe ku tiva xo biha ni xta kahle nakambe va fanele va kombana moya wa vukwavo.'

Tswana:

'Batho botlhe ba tsetswe ba gololosegile le go lekalekana ka seriti le ditshwanelo. Ba abetswe go akanya le maikutlo, mme ba tshwanetse go direlana ka mowa wa bokaulengwe.'

Lingala:

'Bato nyonso na mbotama bazali nzomi pe bakokani na limemya pe makoki. Bazali na mayele pe base, geli kofanda na bondeko okati na bango.'

Venda:

'Vhathu vho?he vha bebwa vhe na mbofholowo nahone vha tshi lingana siani ?a tshirunzi na pfanelo. Vhathu vho?he vho ?ewa mihumbulo na mvalo ngauralo vha tea u konou farana sa vhathu vhathihi.'

Tshiluba:

'Bantu bonsu badi baledibwa badikadile ne badi ne makokeshi amwe. Badi ne lungenyi lwa bumuntu ne kondo ka moyo, badi ne bwa kwenzelangana malu mu buwetu.'

The few African languages that diverge from this annoying pattern are Fang, Wolof, and Ewe. Wolof considering its contact with European languages may not count.

Why couldn't African languages evolve beyond this pattern? And slang is even MORE primitive than this, if that's possible. I bet even Khoisan languages have more to offer than this. What do you think?

To find more things that make African languages weird, read one of the comments in this article, Differences Between Negroids and Other Races | Lumine Boreali

I know that some of you may look at Tibetan or Cantonese and scoff, because to you it's all "chig chog". But the fact is that there is greater diversity of phonotactics amoungst Sino-Tibetan languages and Mongloid languages in general than in the Niger-Congo family.

Compare Japanese to Mandarin and you will see. Does this look like "ching chong"?

"Subete no ningen wa, umarenagara ni ****e jiyu de ari, katsu, songen to kenri to ni tsuite byodo de aru. Ningen wa, risei to ryoshin to o sazukerarete ori, tagai ni doho no seishinn o motte kodo shinakereba naranai."

And you may say, "But Japanese looks like African language." That's where your wrong, many vowels are actually silent in Japanese.

African languages rarely have mute or lax vowels.

And what boggles my mind is that there is more diversity in the Sinitic family alone than in all Niger-Congo families combined.

The real prize however belongs to Ameridian families, who have so much differences even in closley related specimens. Look at Arapaho, Nuxalk, Kwatiutl, Blackfoot, Hopi, Quechua, Yucatec, Nahuatl etc. It's beautiful.