Useful Idiots On Parade

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via,

Anyone interested in glimpsing the Wokester media mentality in full intellectual-yet-idiot smuggery might check out Slate’s Political Gabfest (i.e. podcast) from this past Saturday, titled “The Wahoo Edition.” The Gabfest’s three regulars, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson go after Julian Assange as if they were three college dormitory RAs dissecting the character of an unpopular freshman.

Plotz kicked it off by introducing Mr. Assange as “the eminence greasy of Wikileaks,” a cute twist on the French phrase éminence grise (gray eminence, i.e. an elder statesman, pronounced eminence greez, and he knows it). Bazelon offered her explanation for Ecuador’s eagerness to be rid of Mr. Assange:

“He was acting like a big jerk. They were tired of him skateboarding all over the residence and scuffing up the walls and not cleaning his bathroom. He wore out his welcome on hospitality grounds.”

Note: Emily Bazelon is a lawyer. No one mentioned the fact that Ecuador was promised debt relief from the US-controlled International Monetary Fund within hours of expelling Mr. Assange.

Plotz quickly added: “He didn’t clean up after his cat, which, as a cat owner, that is grounds for expulsion.”

Dickerson weighed in: “The big problem is he’s not an appealing man… he’s clearly a narcissist. He’s unpleasant. In addition to messing with our election, he’s basically on Team Russia.”

Plotz said of Wikileaks: “It’s acting as an agent for a foreign governments, as it has with Russia.”

Some people in this sore beset republic get hooked on opiates or crystal meth.

Wokesters get hooked on The Narrative: That Russia “stole” the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton by hacking the Democratic National Committee’s emails, with the collusion of the Trump campaign. The latter point has been authoritatively invalidated by Mr. Mueller, of course, but the Wokester’s cling to their hope that some as-yet-concealed mischief in the Mueller Report will somehow contradict Mr. Mueller’s own conclusions.

As for the alleged hacking per se, you realize of course that neither the FBI nor Mr. Mueller’s “team,” nor anyone in the DOJ before the retirement of Jeff Sessions made any effort to secure and examine the very DNC computer servers at issue. Rather, they relied on a private company called CrowdStrike, hired by Hillary and the DNC itself, to analyze the alleged hacking. Can you imagine anything more arrantly dishonest or more legally irregular?

The Slate Gabfest crew never engages in these dark issues. Nor do they mention the fact that the Mueller “team” (or any other US law enforcement agency) never indicted Mr. Assange for “collusion” with Russia, nor even attempted to interview him and hear what he had to say about it. On his own, Mr. Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of the DNC emails he received and subsequently released to the US news media, including The New York TimesThe WashPo, and the Cable TV News networks, who happily ran with the story. There is a pretty good theory though, advanced by William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower, and other Intel Community associates, that he DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system. Meaning, someone inside the DNC downloaded the info onto a thumb drive. The data transfer rates prove that, they say.





Bazelon: “He’s far creepier.”

Dickerson: “You don’t find that Dickensian beard alluring?”

