Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:06 | #

I’ve heard it said, that in today’s world, the British are Greeks, and the Americans are Romans. It was quite common for the newly rich Romans to import Greeks to teach them about running an empire, art, music, philosophy and the like.

Well, I’ve been keeping a list of Greeks - er uh, Britons - I’d like to see exit America’s Empire:

1) Karen Armstrong, author of numerous stomach turning books about the evils of Christianity and the wonders of Islam.

2) Tina Brown, elitist editor of the elitist New Yorker Magazine.

3) Timothy Garton Ash, one word: Humbug; post-modernist fool whose simple ideas spellbind the simple minded of America. In 5 years he’ll be forgotten. Is he a knob polisher? Sure looks it.

4) Niall Ferguson, not a bad fellow, really. But a big booster for American Empire and writer of a terribly flawed book of American History. I think he came to America to cash in, to strike a gold mine. Ought to learn how to dress from Timothy Garton Ash.

Now nobody get angry with me. I’m a huge admirer of Albion, and niegboring tribes.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:48 | #

Geoff, I don’t think that I as a Melbournian can follow your lead and complain about British imports as it was we who exported Ms G Greer to the mother country (and Prof. Singer to your own).

BTW, I notice that the Equal Opportunities Commission leads off its list of modern day inequalities by complaining that female full-time workers are still paid less than male full-time workers.

This is a sneaky argument, since it suggests that equal things are being compared. In fact, male full-time workers work much longer hours on average than their full-time female counterparts.

For more information, see here. As for fewer women being in leadership positions, a Norwegian study found that women were offered as many promotions as men but were more likely to quit.

Posted by Marc on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:37 | #

Geoff,

Don’t forget Andrew Sullivan!

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 03:30 | #

Sullivan. The children that write for National Review Online sure fell for his act, now they got pie, er…, testosterone all over their faces.

Have you read this bit by Sullivan?

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/testosterone.html

Posted by Marc on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:52 | #

Ugh.  Yes I have.  His ode to testosterone!  Only Sullivan could make it so long, so drawn out, so clunky…

I never understood the appeal of that man, except perhaps that he articulated well what the whole pro-war crowd is all about.

Posted by AnalogMan on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:24 | #

Robert Reis:  I followed that link. Wow! What a bunch of whiners.  The core of that article seems to be: Men are victims; we suffer more than women and we deserve sympathy and compensation for it and we don’t get it and it’s not fair!

I agree that feminism is evil. Men are discriminated against, true enough. I have argued that the first priority for White western men is to get control of our womenfolk. The way to do that is not by becoming women, but by becoming men again. Victimhood is not edifying.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 07:14 | #

Geoff,

I like that analogy though if Britain is Greece, where are the Spartans?!

GW your 3rd / last link is dead.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 07:15 | #

Btw,

Chinese Men Seeking Wives in America

Posted by Hail on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:09 | #

It’s a delight to see a six-year-old thread resurface like this.

Late 2004 vs. Early 2011: What has changed? For one, and relevant to the OP here, is surely the emergence of the so-called “Men’s Rights Movement” (which in acronym is unfortunately the same as MajorityRights’).

“The Men’s-Rights Movement”, as it stands, is among the odder quasi-political movements of history for sure, in that a large share of its energies go towards what is—in effect—sexual predation. It has nihilistic and selfish impulses, rather than aspiring towards higher goals as the rest of us do.

Take note that the very Mark Richardson who comments above against feminism (dated Dec. 2004) is now posting against “Men’s-Rights” at his OzConservative blog. No coincidence: The two ideologies, allegedly archenemies, are actually “evil twins” (to borrow a phrase from Sunic on Americanism vs. Sovietism).

An excellent post from Mark Richardson examining the absurdities in the thinking of (a large share of) “Men’s Rights” advocates.

Male separatism doesn’t challenge the political orthodoxy. It responds to a female attempt to be autonomous of men with a male attempt to be autonomous of women. It makes the pursuit of autonomy less one-sided than it currently is, but it doesn’t attempt to promote healthy, functional, interdependent, complementary relationships between men and women.

I don’t believe that what most young men really want are Japanese robots or libido suppressing drugs. Nor is a politics based on the idea that there are absolutely no women worth having a relationship with likely to have great appeal. Separatism is a wrong turn for the men’s movement.

Posted by Hail on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:22 | #

Another good one:

What is Wrong With the Men’s Right’s Movement?

The men’s rights movement (MRM) continues to grow in size, but politically is deeply flawed.

The average men’s rights activist (MRA) is hostile to feminism. And yet he also agrees fundamentally with the feminist agenda.

This leads to [continued]...

.

In order to persuade men not to marry, the male separatists push the idea that men are harmed by marriage. They also portray women in very negative terms (gold diggers, sluts etc).

It ends up sounding uncannily like the feminism of the 1970s, but with the sexes reversed. In the 1970s, it was feminists who thought marriage was oppressive to women, who promoted separatist solutions, and who therefore painted men in the most unflattering light possible.

.

Where does the current strategy of the MRM get men? What are those men who want relationships with women, and children of their own, to do? You hear MRAs talk about sex with robots, or hiring surrogates to have children without the need for a wife, or developing affectionate male companionship, or hiring prostitutes. It just sounds desperate and unrealistic.

.

It’s a problem I’ve seen over and over. People feel the oppressive effect of liberal changes to society. They get motivated to act politically. But political clarity is lacking and so they end up trying to cure liberalism by adopting some more radical form of liberalism. And so nothing changes, despite all the expenditure of energy.

Excellent analysis.

Posted by Hanuman Chalisa on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:16 | #

very well said.
Aadhar Status
Aadhaar
E-Aadhaar
Hanumanji Wallpapers
Hanumanj Chalisa Hindi
Hanumanji Chalisa Lyrics