Borisova and the Reformed Cuntocracy

This is quite disgusting. The usual "You are all anti-business, anti-achievement" crap written by a lying nasty cheat who has become leader of a country (no not the crooked Leader of The Free World in the fat suit, his much less influential copycat City of London/Oligarch puppet-minion). The first rule of journalism must be that it stands independent of power. So a front page like this is another sad day for the Daily Telegraph, but also sends an unhappy message about what journalism is actually for. The question as to whether foreigners (the owners) should be able to use newspapers in this way is an interesting one, but all a bit too late. Preaching to the converted I suppose.

Half-maddened Borisova is not only demonstrably not a half-decent politician, he is not even a moderate journalist, a fully paid of member of this small club. Squawking, nasty, pompous shits more or less to a cunt. A real toss-up who is the biggest, Cameron, Mogg, Borisova or Osborne. I should award them all something between an 8.75 and a 9.5. Astonishing that this male clique of money burnished really-not-very-brights has pushed it's way to the top again in parts of England, fuelled more and more by non-dom "Expats" who have little feeling or understanding for their nominated home country, other than through fantasy island rose-tinted spectacles.

"It should be pointed out that the term is drawn from the UK’s northern urban demotic and the linguistic properties thereof". Not surprising as Dr. William Clark is a quite brilliant academic, writer and Glaswegian, saturated as he is in a wonderfully sardonic miasma of pretend irony, so fairly regularly used to attacks from immensely arrogant, narrow-minded less intelligent fools from the southern part of Britain with far less talent and wisdom than he.

Slightly to moderately sarcastic it is fair to say, but with some deep and solid truths behind it: https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster62/lob62-cuntocracy.pdf

"Hayek pretended he was writing on ‘totalitarianism’, something he largely invented to roll the Soviets, Nazis and socialists into one; but bureaucracies are much the same everywhere, and it is clear from the examples he uses that we are also talking about capitalism here, too. But in this mélange, does not Hayek accidentally point to the underlying metacuntocratic principle underlying most societies? He also points to bureaucracies as not integral to it, but just perfectly suited to helping the unprincipled attain positions of influence and power because a lack of scruples gives them an advantage in advancing their careers".