Comparing Men of Empire

I do not affirm empires, but if we contrast the “gentleman” who ran the British empire of the 19^th century with the "neoconservatives" who largely run the declining American empire of today, I think we can see reasons why the British empire lasted twice as long as the American empire.

The British sent their sons to schools to learn how to become gentleman. The Rugby tradition first taught religious and moral principles, second, “gentlemanly conduct,” and third, intellectual ability. This led a boy to become a man who Philip Mason defined as, “ jealous about his reputation in the eyes of men, jealous about his integrity in his own eyes, and jealous about his responsibility for those entrusted to his care.”

These ideals were not always lived up to, and the schools were a long way from perfect, but these ideals were adhered to enough to help maintain and manage the largest empire in history for hundreds of years.  As the gentleman declined the British empire declined.

Contrast this with the neoconservatives whose conduct is destroying the American empire. Generally speaking, the neoconservatives prefer cunning to courage, dual loyalties take the place of patriotism, making money selfishly is more important than moral principles, and the code of an eye for an eye is preferred to the code of the gentleman.

The neoconservatives do not measure up to the gentleman of the British empire, and this has much to do with why we are so quickly declining with uncalled-for wars, financial criminality, and cultural degeneracy. A great nation deserves better leaders.