TCS Daily


The Fourth Great Assault on the Anglosphere

By Stephen Bainbridge - March 5, 2007 12:00 AM

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to write a book that explicitly picks up where Nobel Prize winner Winston Churchill's famous History of the English-Speaking Peoples left off. In a provocative new book, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 (HarperCollins, 2007), however, British historian Andrew Roberts largely succeeds in pulling off that daring stunt.

Roberts' History is no mere narrative of recent events. Instead, it is an apologia for the proposition that the English-speaking peoples are the last best hope of mankind.

Roberts' focus is the core Anglosphere; i.e., the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. During the 20th Century, the Anglosphere faced four great challenges. Three have been successfully seen off, with the Anglosphere triumphant: Prussian Militarism in World War I, Fascism in World War II, and Communism in the Cold War. The fourth assault arrived on 9/11 when the true menace of Islamic terrorism was finally brought home to the cultural and financial center of the modern Anglosphere.

Indeed, just as Churchill's History was intended to rally the Anglosphere in the early days of the struggle against Communism, Roberts' intent self-evidently is to rally the Anglosphere against Islamofascism.

Towards that end, Roberts emphasizes that the Anglosphere succeeds when it stands as one. In the two World Wars and the Cold War, the UK and USA fought side-by-side, with not inconsiderable help from the other Anglosphere nations. In contrast, on those occasions when the Anglosphere was divided against itself - such as Suez and Vietnam - defeat followed.

Roberts' account thus provides an historical setting against which to evaluate such events as Australian Prime Minister John Howard's recent claim that al-Qaeda should be "praying as many times as possible" for a Barack Obama victory in the 2008 US Presidential election or UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent announcement that there will be additional pullout of British troops from Iraq. Howard's criticism should be seen not as meddling in our internal affairs, but rather as a reminder that what US voters do matters to the Anglosphere as a whole. In contrast, Blair's decision may portend an increasing slide towards Iraq being a solely US war, in which the Anglosphere stands divided and thus vulnerable.

If Roberts is right, whether the 21st Century extends the era of Anglosphere hegemony thus depends on whether the Anglosphere becomes a house divided against itself. The two great issues here are education and demographics. Most of the Anglosphere nations have seen a dramatic rise in Muslim immigration and population growth since the Second World War. This demographic reality has been coupled with the rise of multiculturalism as official state policy in much of the Anglosphere. Properly understood, the Anglosphere is not a collection of nations united by language and race, but rather a group of nations united by a common culture. Yet, in the name of multiculturalism, our political and educational systems have not pursued the goal of assimilation. To the contrary, throughout the Anglosphere, the notion that we should be inculcating the values of the Anglosphere among all our citizens of whatever race or religion has become anathema to the Politically Correct.

It is appropriate that Tony Blair has risen to this challenge, as the problem seems most advanced in the UK. In September of last year, Blair gave a speech that ought to be required reading throughout the Anglosphere in which he said:

"Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.

"But when it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point, no distinctive culture or religion supersedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom."

It is this "shared heritage" that Roberts believes historically united the Anglosphere. It is this same shared heritage that must be revived that Roberts calls upon us to embrace as we go forward to meet the fourth great assault on the Anglosphere.

Categories:

72 Comments

Out with a whimper
The Anglo-Left seems quite content to capitulate without so much as a peep.

They view western culture as corrupt and racist. Rather than taking pride in the accomplishments of the Anglo culture they apologize for the “transgressions” of the past and openly invite its demise.

the left
They seem to think that we can use diplomacy to defeat terrorism. This is a liberal pipe dream. When the elected leader of Iran calls for the destruction of Israel and America, believe him. He means it.

Too bad the book...
missed the very recent comment by Prime Minister Howard, reminding Muslims in Australia that one of the freedoms they possessed was "the freedom to leave" if they chose not to "be Australian". Long live John Howard. What stones!

Keeping the race pure
"To the contrary, throughout the Anglosphere, the notion that we should be inculcating the values of the Anglosphere among all our citizens of whatever race or religion has become anathema to the Politically Correct."

I'll skip the inculcation, thanks. This notion is very much beside the point.

The USA is a melting pot. Our several million Muslims are all in process of becoming Americans. The dominant culture here tends to dissolve less refractory cultures. Even the Amish are hard pressed to keep their kids from getting facial tattoos and wearing their Guess jeans down around their pubes.

In the UK it's like the rest of Europe. History has conspired to keep their cultures separate. Thus all the EU countries have fifth columns composed of their immigrant communities, isolated from the remnants of the older, whiter, northern European culture.

In Australia they don't allow any darkies into the country, as I recall. Do they actually have a problem?

The real problem with inculcating the "values of the anglosphere" is that half the Anglos don't believe in such things themselves. We're the multicultural side of the family.

Taking pride in our accomplishments
Maybe you could start a White People's Club in your town. That might help instill some pride in your heritage.

Speak for Yourself Roy....
"Half the Anglos don"t believe in such things as"...democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage? Maybe in your Leftist world that is true. But where I live, most people I know believe these things to be the very essence of being an American. Real Americans -- as well as other Anglos -- believe these values transcend our rather minor differences of color, religion or ethnic background. To paraphrase Tony Blair, these beliefs are where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British, American, New Zealander, Canadian or Australian. Only a Leftist would interpret support for such concepts as an attempt to "keep the race pure."

Race
What does race have to do with this? I specifically addresses culture.

There are peoples of all colors whom are of Anglo culture.

Am I suppose to be ashamed of my heritage?

Really
And what values are those that you don't believe in Roy? Why am I not suprised that you are ashamed of your heritage?

The great philosophers, great writers, great artist. The founders of this nation, Lincoln, Ford, Eienstein, Twain.

Yeah, that is a heritage to be ashamed of.

Multicultutalism is not the melting pot. It is a excuse not to assimilate. Why is assimilation so bad? When in Rome do as the Romans?

Assimilation does not mean abandon of the past but it means embracing the values and laws of the land.

Are you actuially advocating peoples who immagrate are not subject to our laws and values? The cost is anarchy.

I for on am fed up with this notion that all we were and all we are is shamed. We are what we are.

Why not?
Am I supposed to be ashamed of my heritage? It is racist to talk openly of men like Washington, Lincoln, Heny Ford, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, et al?

This is racist? What about the great arts and works of literature?

To be proud of ones heritage is not racist Roy. It does not denigrate other cultures.

I for one am really fed up with this apologist notion that the Anglo race is the root of evil.

It always boils down to race doesn't it. Why the Democratic party is built around racism.

Funny, I consider the man and not his race.

Help me define Anglosphere
I am glad to see the Anglosphere discussion back, but I wonder why Russia is not included. Does the Anglosphere only include English speaking countries? Or should it be extended to include all "white" historically free market states like France, Italy, and Germany?

It seems that historically white, free market economies hold all the attributes of the Anglosphere except for speaking English.

Why the English speaking peoples have been so successful: an idea
"But when it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point, no distinctive culture or religion supersedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.""

When people believe their rights are granted by a king or a government, tyranny returns.

When people believe their rights are from 'their creator', then liberty has a chance.

The socialists in the world must believe in government tyranny and force to be successul and must therefore kill any notion of a creator lest the masses get any idea they have unalienable rights to life and liberty.

A little hyper there
the Creator was for centuries used as a justification for all kinds of tyrannical systems - perhaps the phrase 'divine right of kings' rings a bell. One of the problems in Islamic politics is the difficulty of getting religion out of government.

>e socialists in the world must believe in government tyranny and force to be successul and must therefore kill any notion of a creator lest the masses get any idea they have unalienable rights to life and liberty.

for centuries, priests and other relitigous figures insisted to 'the masses' that it was God's will that they serve their masters.

If you want to identify a key element in the growth of non-tyrannical government, it's the idea that religion and poltiics should be separated. This isn't the same as the state banning religion, or the state endorsing atheism.

The founders got this just right. Why are you looking to fix something that isn't broken.

by definition
Anglosphere refers to those countries that are descended from the English sphere of influence.

Anglo=England.

India is considered part of the Anglosphere, and I doubt many would consider India to be an historically white country.

Why do you insist on bringing race into this discussion?

A semantic problem
You point out the communications gap we have to try to speak across. I say "The real problem with inculcating the "values of the anglosphere" is that half the Anglos don't believe in such things themselves." And my meaning is referenced in the article, with the "Anglosphere" being an exclusionary realm where Anglophones celebrate their differences from everyone else. And many of us just don't feel that way or believe that way.

To you, that just means we don't believe in a list of abstract words that carry a positive charge for you: "democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage".

I like those ideas just fine. What I don't care for so much is what is being done in the name of those mighty but very general ideas.

In Iraq, for instance, political opponents of Saddam could expect to meet a grisly end. But average citizens enjoyed the rule of law and equal treatment under it. Since we consolidated our occupation their number one complaint has been the crime, violence, lawlessness and civil chaos we have inflicted on the country. It has been in a state of anarchy since the day we allowed the looting to continue.

Also, Iraq used to be secular and nonsectarian. Today, needless to say it is not safe to be either a Sunni or a Shiite. And the southern half of the country is trending toward being a theocracy led by the mullahs.

So I'll take your lovely abstractions. But let's spread them around so others can enjoy them as well. Shall we? All peoples in every land, speaking every language, prefer the same things we do (freedom, justice, etc.)-- excepting only those zealots, also present in every land, who feel everyone should think and believe in the same way they do, or they must be conquered and destroyed.

I'm stunned roy
I knew you had a bit of the anti-sematic in you, but I never saw you as a race-baiting racist.

Your posts on this so far sure tend to lean that way.

Celebrating transcultural values
My allegiances are to humanity at large. We've seen far too much over the past century what happens when little nations oppose one another. It's time the human race celebrated itself, not divided itself up into these endless warring factions.

"Multicultutalism is not the melting pot. It is a excuse not to assimilate. Why is assimilation so bad?"

It does not mean not to assimilate. Obviously most peoples in America assimilate readily. And I'm saying that's a good thing. Maybe "transcultural values" would be a better choice of words, if multicultural has you confused.

"Are you actuially advocating peoples who immagrate are not subject to our laws and values?"

No.

"I for on am fed up with this notion that all we were and all we are is shamed. We are what we are."

So long as you're not killing people because you disagree with them, I'm on your side. Shame is not appropriate when you're living in harmony with the rest of the planet.

Racist messages
You mean you don't see the article as being a paean to separatism and the right of the Anglophone world, due to its superior values, to rule uber alles?

I thought that was fairly apparent from the text. The article describes a condition of ethnic superiority-- the Anglos over the presumed rabble that inhabit the rest of the world. I guess I'm just a racist for objecting to this view.

Yes you are, in the terms you are using
All societies have this view, to some extent, or they would change and strive to become the "superior" society. What I see is an article that talks about the superiority of a culture a societal system, not of a race or some kind of ethnic superiority.

But, again, we may be arguing over the wrong thing. I guess I need to read the book and see which way the author really comes down.

As to the article on TCS, I see nothing racist about it.

Government Is The Real Assault
"Islamic terrorism", if such a thing even exists, has nothing on the US government as far as bing the biggest threat to our society and freedom.

Anglo-Saxons HAVE been the most succssful people
but now the governments of the US and UK have embraced foreign ideologies and the basic framework of Marxism, and are busy destroying the superior Anglo-Saxon world that our ancestors created.

Islamic terrorism pales in comparison to the threat of our own government. In fact, if not for the US government I doubt very much if "Islamic terrorism" would even exist, that is of course assuming it exists now, which is an assumption I do not make.

Capitulate to what?
To "Islamic terrorism"? Bah! "Islamic terrorism" is just the latest scare technique used by the government to get you and me to capitulate to endless invasions of our privacy, property and liberties by the state.

If not "terrorism", then it will be global warming or some other "sky is falling" scenario. In fact, the "Islamic terrorism" scare is just another weapon in the governments arsenal for its war on civilized society. They want to turn all of us into animals howling for the blood of the invented enemy. I have no problem with Islam or the Arab world. Creating an enemy and dehumanizing them is one of the best ways to get free people to submit to collectivism. The war on terror is just another manipulation to usher in omnipotent government and socialism.

Take off the tin foil hat!
There is no doubt that terrorism is being performed on a daily basis by folks who are Islamic- to state otherwise is irrational and delusional. Period.

Please, enough with the foil hat cliche
We've all heard it a million times. As if it were somehow ridiculous to doubt the government.

Terrorism is certainly being performed by the state against people who are Islamic on a daily basis. And of course there are people that are Islamic and unaffiliated with a state that are engaging in violence in return. The idea that there is a global movement of "Islamic terrorists" that is attempting to destroy "the west" or "the anglosphere" is, quite frankly, laughable. If anything is going to destroy our society, it will be our own government, if it has not already done so.

This idea that we need to get together to defend against the enemy is just another way of sneaking socialism/fascism in the back door. Creating a bogeyman is one of the state's oldest and most successful methods of ushering in collectivism and tyranny. And because they are claiming to do it in the name of "the angloshpere" this time, some of you people who should know better are eagerly gulping down the kool-aid.

Something I've been wondering about
"The socialists in the world must believe in government tyranny and force to be successul and must therefore kill any notion of a creator lest the masses get any idea they have unalienable rights to life and liberty."

Actually my own right to life and liberty is inalienable by any government. Yet I find no need for a Creator. How can that be?

Do you mean that if you don't have a creator to give you these things, you can't just be a full human being and take them yourself? That's like having to say Mother may I. Why not just cut out the middle man and take your freedom?

It doesn't matter
The important thing is that you realize that your rights are NOT gifts of the state. Some believe they flow from God. Thats fine. Others believe they flow just from our nature as humans. Thats fine too. Believe what you want about the origin of our rights, just don't believe they are gifts from government that can be taken away based on the whim of the executive.

Who's in the club?
As nearly as I can interpret this concept, in order to belong to the Anglosphere you have to be

1. Capitalist
2. English speaking

The French don't qualify-- even though without their help the Americans would likely have lost their bid for independence. Spanish speaking individuals, like Alvaro Vargas Llosa on today's pages here, would probably have to pass some sort of test.

Russia, I think would fall on the autocracy issue. They now have a king, but an elected one.

Replace the words socialism/fascism with conservatism/christian nationalism/fascism and...
I agree 100%.

Civil disobedience
"Believe what you want about the origin of our rights, just don't believe they are gifts from government that can be taken away based on the whim of the executive."

You appear to be endorsing civil disobedience against our government. Abruptly and immediately following 9/11 we had hundreds of pages of ready made text that suddenly appeared, infringing on our rights of habeas corpus and many other rights, The Patriot Act was stampeded through and became the law of the land. We came very close, in fact, to having Patriot Two come into effect. But the surprise was spoiled by some whistle blower to whom we owe quite a lot.

You would appear to be saying that in cases of confiscation of property, extralawful detention, etc. we have the right to follow the advice of Patrick Henry, and take up arms against our oppressors.

Am I interpreting you correctly?

Phonism
You've caused me to see the light. How can Anglophonism be racist if a Hottentot, an Andaman Islander or an Eskimo be an English speaker?

What I meant to say is that it is phonist. You all are a bunch of phonists. :)

Of course
Of course we have the right to take up arms against the government. We have ALWAYS had that right. In reality I would not advise it since the balance of power is so ridiculously out of proportion that you would just be committing suicide by doing so. But in the philosophical sense we have always retained the right to take up arms against the state.

Frankly the only reason I obey the state at all is out of fear for my life and freedom. I owe them no allegiance or obedience. They are mass murdering socialists, and I want nothing to do with them.

That may have been true at one time...
... however we have been doing almost everything in our power to empower the movement and create a threat that is no longer local or regional but global.

Thats Propaganda
There is no global terror threat. There are various regional conflicts involving groups and people that most Americans (rationally) don't understand. It is easy for government and neocon ideologues to lump them together as one global threat that is aiming to destroy the west, or the "angloshpere" (which is a socialist concept itself), and most ignorant and self-centered Americans believe it.

There may be a few muslims out there looking to blow up a bomb in the US or something, I have no idea. But there is no expansive global network or threat. Most of the violence done by muslim "terror groups" is done against other muslims and is about tribal or religious issues that we have no understanding of.

I would say they are all just phonies ;)

Well I agree on global warming, etc. However
With respect to Islamic Terror, perhaps you should present that argument to the families of 9-11 or Madrid, et al?

Was that a conspiracy?

You have got to kidding comparing radical Islam to the other 3.
You have got to kidding comparing radical Islam to the other 3.

They are a rag tag bunch with insignificant military assets. If the USA army pulls out of Iraq they will most likely start spend assets killing each other (Shia radicals on the side of Shia Iraqis against Sunni Radicals on the side of Sunni Iraqis).

Would they like to start WW III? Yes but so did Charles Manson. You have consider not only their intent but also weather or not they have the means to be a considerable threat. THEY DO HAVE THE MEANS TO BE A REAL THREAT AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL NOT MATTER WHAT WE DO!!!!

Do they need to be dealt with? Yes with an appropriate amount of force.



Huh?
What is this psychobabble?

Of Course It Was A Conspiracy
Even if the conspirators were "Islamic terrorists", a hypothesis which I find to be so implausible as to be laughable. But either way it was a conspiracy. Unless of course you think it just happened randomly with no planning?

Are you really taking the position that the US government would not lie and kill people?

Those Are All Just Forms Of Socialism
As long as the government can get to embrace any "ism", then they have won the war for your mind.

In fact, the "Islamic terrorism" scare is just another weapon in the governments
Agreed
'The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. '
H. L. Mencken



It was clearly a lucky shot by Osama and his rag tag band of...
...Radical Islamist, but they are very weak in comparison to the USA military. They are in no way a world power. They are more like a religious cult. We should not ignore them but we have grossly over reacted to thier hiddious crime.





Disagree
I don't think its clear at all who was behind it. And there is frankly no reason to believe anyone who says they do know what or who was behind it. Everyone has an agenda. The US government has been caught lying and murdering so many times that I would not put anything past them, nor would I ever believe a word said by any of their representatives. To categorically rule out the US government as a suspect is ridiculous on its face.

But of course I agree that "radical Islamists", again assuming such people even exist, are as nothing when compared to the very real threats of communism and fascism from the past.

The real threats of our time are still communism and fascism, and this time they are coming straight from the US government.

Stupid is as Stupid does...
Only an ignorant fool would claim that there is no global terror threat. Read the Looming Tower, for some more information. There clearly is a global terrorist network, made up of a loosly connected number of separate groups, to be sure, but a network nonetheless.

9/11 proves that the terrorists have global aspirations, and certainly anti-US ones. What if they had had a nuke? No, we ignore this threat only at our own peril. However, it is clear that mpeino is going to support the weak-kneed left.

-Bob

And then...
...there is must plain stupidity. mpeino, being a foolish ignoramous, ignores the fact that we clearly do know who did it. And, in fact, bin Laden ADMITS that he did it. There is absolutely no evidence contrary. But I'm sure that mpeino believes in little green men, too.

-Bob

You're The Only Leftist I See Here
Sorry, clearly you have bought into all the socialist propaganda the government has been throwing out there.

I'm not going to read "Looming Tower" or any other socialist screed you want to send my way. I'm not afraid of Goldstein (I mean Osama), or whoever the enemy du jour is.

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us,"
I Samuel 8
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."


And so today GW Bush, who avoided the war in Vietnam, sends our sons to war and occupies the white house with plenty of pomp and circumstance at our expense. Congress buys our votes with our own money. And social security recipients thank the government rather than their children who actually pay the bill. Congressmen point to bridges to nowhere claiming that they built them, but we paid and the workers and engineers built them.



Why Should I Believe Osama?
He couldn't lie to boost his own prestige? Who is he anyway? How do I know such a person even exists?

Must prioritize
The first rule is to survive.

While the USA may have a bad government, it is better than all the rest.

The west made many deals with many dictators to defeat the USSR.

One totalitarian regime down. Hundreds more to go. One must prioritize and target the most immediate threat.

Something about Pareto. And it really does not help to equate the USA with DPRK which some do. Moral relativism really skews priorities.

avoided the war in Vietnam
You start out fine then screw it up.

Bush flew fighter jets and risked his life more often getting into a cockpit than many did in Vietnam.

FDR NEVER served in the military and yet he is consdiered by many to have saved the world while sending thousands to die in war.

The other part about reducing the size and scope of government I agree with.

Who's fault is it? OURS!
We get the government we deserve.

FDR Now there is name we should genuflect to.
FDR Now there is name we should genuflect to. He threatened to pack the courts to eliminate our constitutional protections. His stupid policies made the depression last 12 years. He gave us stupid un-American programs like social security. George Washington had set an example of not running for office more than 2 times but our almost dictator FDR kept running. He tried to cartelize American business.




TCS Daily Archives