The Hacking Hoax

The Hacking Hoax
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

Okay, class, let’s get this straight, once and for all.

We have been told, mostly by a gaggle of Marxoid Democratic circus clowns, shocked, hysterical, and desperate to generate some excuse for their massive humiliation in the recent election, that their candidate, the “smartest woman in the world”, lost only because, somehow, the evil Russians cybernetically manipulated the electoral system, delivering the victory to the unthinkable, the unspeakable, the deplorable Donald J. Trump. Yeah, right. It’s important for everyone who knows that this is nonsense to speak up, before it congeals into another myth—like Albert Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 (until corruption in California and elsewhere is factored in). Russia did not “hack” the recent election, altering the outcome.

That, of course, is physically impossible. No less an authority on Presidential politics and computer security than John McAfee assures us. If only the brain-dead Libertarian Party had possessed the moxie to nominate him instead of that other gink.

What is more than possible is that somebody gained information from inside the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton campaign, and released it, providing the American public with information that persuaded them to change their vote. Whoever did that (always assuming that it was actually done) did nothing that the average news reporter doesn’t theoretically want to do, and he deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom, not prosecution for having done it.

Indications are that the information came from one or more of the senior employees of the Hillary Clinton campaign or of the Democratic National Committee (names have been suggested) and that is one reason why the source must be covered up at all costs. They were not hacks, after all, but leaks, being blamed (perhaps as a punishment) on the most famous former communist in the world. Democrats must feel that he has betrayed their Cause.

All of this would make a fairly interesting distopian science fiction novel, with the added twist that our survival—the survival of Western Civilization itself—depends on the restraint and the nuanced understanding of an individual who has been variously described as a thug, a murderer, and a torturer. The trouble, at least for me, is that I’m a science fiction writer who doesn’t write distopias. For half a century, I’ve been trying to get my readers to see the glorious future that lies before them, if only they’ll stop listening to, and believing in, what you might call pre-mutated creatures like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who continue to try to shape our destinies to their ends, even though they have been thoroughly rejected.

But squawking about “hacking” accomplishes something else. It misdirects media attention toward how it might have been accomplished, and away from what the leaks actually contained. Much of it is disastrous—for the left. For example, thanks to these leaks, the followers of Bernie Sanders (and everybody else) now understand that he was the victim of a half-vast conspiracy to illegally deprive him of millions of primary and caucus votes that he deserved. and to give them to The-Woman-With-One-Eyebrow. In the end, as a result, many of these disillusioned followers ended up voting for anybody but Hillary (anybody from Millard Fillmore to Faith Spotted Eagle to Milo Yiannopoulis) and contributed richly to her defeat.

It was overwhelmingly right, the other day, for President-Elect the Donald to declare “It’s time to move on”; and, equally, it was wrong—and a sign of weakness—to promise to continue to investigate the “hacking” that never occurred. In response to the non-event, “Our Hero” Barack Obama quacked lamely that he was going to get even with the villainous former KGB translator who has always recognized him as the wimp he is. Two Russian recreational facilities here were shut down, and thirty-five Russian cookie-pushers were told to go home. Putin decided to hold back any retaliatory response his advisors had in mind, leave an equivalent facility near Moscow open for American personnel to enjoy, and throw a big Russian Orthodox New Year’s party for the kids of our diplomats. After all, in less than three weeks he won’t have the Kenyan Candidate to kick around any more, and he has an appointment to discuss this and other matters with a grownup, Donald Trump.

There are those, informed by the United Nations’ infamous “Agenda 21”, who believe that Obama (and Hillary, as well), in addition to trying to cover up what they’ve left behind them in the Catbox of History, are deliberately trying to start World War III. with the object in mind of reducing the planet’s human population to ten percent of what it is today. And why not? They have all the good fallout shelters. They have enough seeds and ova stored up (in Antarctica, among other places) to repopulate the planet, once it stops glowing in the dark. It will be just them, and a few hundred million slaves they have allowed to exist, to provide them with food and drink and whatever else they may wish. Whatever else. If you need a clue about that last, keep an eye on Joe Biden, the next time he’s on TV, and the way he handles the women and children who wander within his reach.

Like them, we’re all being groped.


  1. Even her “popular vote” lead is questionable, even if it is not relevant given that the US does not rely on a popular vote to elect its President, something she and her sycophants know full well.

    thealternativehypothesis (dot) org/index (dot) php/2016/11/25/hillarys-phony-popular-vote-win/

    • The ‘Popular Vote’ is not only constitutionally irrelevant it’s statistically irrelevant as well.

      When people vote we know what the electoral system is. Just as we do in the UK. And we modify our voting decisions accordingly. People in the UK for example who wanted to vote UKIP in 2015 will no doubt have voted Tory, and in some cases Labour, or even Lib Dem, rather than waste their vote.

      In the US Election Trump didn’t campaign or spend much money on organising in places like Oregon, California, New Mexico etc, because there was no point. And it’s quite likely that for the same reason, (perhaps millions of) Trump supporters didn’t bother voting in those States.

      If this had been an election conducted on the ‘Popular Vote’ the total number of votes the respective candidates obtained might have been very different.

      As for ‘hacking’ it’s up to the US to operate a secure election system. I have no idea whether there was any attempt at hacking. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was. But I would also be surprised if it was remotely successful.

      And in any event, how many foreign elections has the United States tried, and sometimes succeeded in interfering in, over the decades. Only last June Obama was trying to blackmail UK Voters into voting to remain in the EU.

  2. Why does it say

    ” 2 thoughts on “The Hacking Hoax” ”

    When there is only 1 reply? (before this one. Does it now say 3 ?

    And what please is a “Pingback”?

    Turning to the text; a good read. IIRC The Donald (is that still used?) said “If it had been decided on the popular vote I would have campaigned in states with big votes, and won better still”

Leave a Reply