The minionization of the press: When you have no power, but want to play make-pretend, you curry favour with those who don't have it either. How the mainstream press made fools of themselves in 2016.

The New York Post has an interesting column about how certain ex-journalists (Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer) " gave a State Department official additional unverified allegations against Trump." When members of the press become quasi-operatives for a presidential candidate, it calls into question every story they ever did.

But they weren't smart enough to hedge their bets right. They picked chronic-noob Clinton. Even the Post's Michael Goodwin buys her hype:

Thus, the Democratic nominee paid for and created allegations against her Republican opponent, gave them to law enforcement, then tipped friendly media to the investigation. And it is almost certain FBI agents supporting Clinton were among the anonymous sources.

In fact, the Clinton connections are so fundamental that there probably would not have been an FBI investigation without her involvement.

That makes hers a brazen work of political genius — and perhaps the dirtiest dirty trick ever played in presidential history. Following her manipulation of the party operation to thwart Bernie Sanders in the primary, Clinton is revealed as relentlessly ruthless in her quest to be president.

Goodwin vastly over-estimates her genius and cunning. She is of average intelligence, but above average in ego. Her methods are conniving, not cunning.

She lost an election, not because she was cunning, but because her mundaneness proved she was no match for Donald Trump. She engaged in puffery, to make herself seem smarter than she was, psyching out middle-management types who look for sure bets, and then follow the script so they could make their neighbours jealous, without having to work, think, or show just how weak and mundane they are, too.

My grandmother used to call Communist party members laktaš: people who got positions of power, not because they were smart, but because they were brutes who used their elbows (lakat) to push through and sucker punch people to push ahead. In other words, people without a moral compass who were basically a one-trick pony.

When Clinton was surrounded by other mediocre types, she thought she had an army, but that army runs for the hills at the first sign of actual battle. Sure, they give you a paper crown and wear the uniform they strut in proudly as they let you make up the rules, but only if there no way there is an actual battle to be done.

Meaning that it's not an army you want if you have to fight a war, and an election is a form of war. Trump, on the other hand, has an entire family of loyal and capable soldiers who understand diplomacy and strategy.

And he knows how people who push and elbow their way to the head of the line behave -- and was ready for it by strategically and stealthily taking just enough electoral votes to defeat her.

If she was this political genius -- she would have shored up her resources, but she is an egomaniac at heart: she went after redundant votes, instead of strategic ones. That she could take advantage of a passive and broken in flock of Democrats who were too busy following scripts to see the landscape ahead of them tells you how poor of a strategist she was.

At least Bernie Sanders was smart enough to bring in fresh recruits with courting Millennials. Clinton never bothered to bring in any fresh new blood -- she stuck with whoever was already in the ranks. Like I said, a noob past the best before date.

She stuck with what worked before -- a red flag that a potential leader doesn't have what it takes -- you have no true sense of strategy, but you follow someone else's playbook, hoping that will be enough, and that no one notices just how in over your head you really are. She hoped her mere sex alone would be what "differentness" she brought to the table -- but not her platform or strategies.

That an amateur politician bested her should be no surprise. When you follow a script, you cannot focus on the reality unfolding because you hinge your victory on someone else's instincts. You don't see how to take advantage of a weakness or opportunity. You have no lateral thinking abilities. You coast on someone else's thoughts.

That means the only people who can attract are minions. You won't have strategists because you will be too threatened by them -- perhaps they will see who you really are, and then want to topple you and take over. You don't want people to think for themselves, or your house of cards collapses.

Which brings us to every reporter who hitched a ride on the Clinton Titanic.

It tells you these are kinds of people who fly under the radar and think they are cunning enough to play it safe by following someone who looks like a "sure thing." These are not original thinkers, strategists, or survivors. They parrot what other people are saying because they do not have the vigilance or creativity to think of anything based on their own thoughts and observations.

They are the people who find the person who elbows her way and hold on to her because they see she is freeing a path, and they do not want to have to do any of the heavy labour.

But the people who are truly cunning create their own path by digging and paving it for themselves. They see opportunity because they know a new path is unexplored and has more resources than the one everyone else is taking from. These are active thinkers who make their own way, not relying on anyone's elbows to do it for them.

Everyone works. Everyone contributes. No on rides on the backs of anyone else or thinks they are owed a paper crown.

That's the reason why Western journalism collapsed: you have followers going down a path that no longer has any resources left because everyone was a scavenger, taking without growing or investing more resources. They picked it bare.

It's why we no longer have journalism. We no longer have investigative stories or new revelations or styles of reportage. It is all whispers and gossip as reporters openly support people destined to lose because they are always puffing and hyping themselves into oblivion.

The press made fools of themselves in 2016 because they coasted on a losing team and the stench of defeat covered them, too. Playing it safe was the worst thing they could have possibly done because they showed the world their every weakness.

And it should surprise no one why journalism is no longer a thing: it marched right into a black hole, mistaking it for the path to paradise.