Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower
Showing posts with label Anglosphere. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglosphere. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

Nothing Special About Britain? Britain!?

Re: the anonymous Obama administration dufus who said: "There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment."

As an unapologetic, full-throated Anglophile I find those comments idiotic, offensive, ahistorical, and in a certain sense anti-American.* I'm of course appalled.

But it's worth focusing on one aspect of this sentiment: It's idiocy. According to the liberal-realist school, some countries matter more than other countries because they are powerful and have the ability to adversely affect our national interest. According to the liberal-internationalist school, allies matter more than non-allies because grand international coalitions are the best way to do the wonderful things want to do on the world stage. So, China matters because it's a rising hegemon. Burkino Faso matters . . . eh, not so much. "Europe" matters because they are allies on security, global warming, human rights, etc. Well, Britain just happens to be our most important, reliable, and powerful ally.

So even if you take the pragmatist's razor to our shared history, culture, and all other romantic attachments to Great Britain, the bulldog still matters — a lot. In other words, to say that Britain isn't any more special than the other 190 countries in the world, you actually have to dislike Britain to the point where you're willing to suspend what are supposed to be your guiding principles and objectives about foreign policy.

* Just to be clear, what I mean by anti-American isn't a knee-jerk attack on anyone's patriotism. Rather, I simply mean that if you think the country that gave us our system of laws, our democratic tradition, our dominant culture, much of our greatest literature, and even our language is no more special than any backwater country which immiserates or brutalizes its people, then you must not think very much of America's culture, traditions, etc. either.

— Jonah Goldberg


Read the full article >>

Monday, 5 January 2009

The Great White Fleet

The Centennial Celebration of the U.S. Fleet's worldwide voyage of circumnavigation from 16 December 1907 to 22 February 1909.

Aust-Cover
A handsome postcard featuring King Edward VII of Australia and President Roosevelt of the United States. Featured in the middle is The Lord Northcote, Australia's 3rd Governor-General

In the twilight of the Old World and Theodore Roosevelt's administration, the president sought to demonstrate growing American naval power by dispatching 14,000 sailors and sixteen U.S. Navy battleships of the Atlantic Fleet along with their escorts, on a worldwide voyage of circumnavigation. The voyage was truly Magellanic for the Panama Canal was not yet open. The ships had to negotiate the Straits of Magellan, and the ice floes of the Southern Ocean, beyond the tip of South America. With their hulls painted white except for the red, white, and blue gilded banners scrollworked on their bows, these ships would famously come to be known as the Great White Fleet.

Us-atlantic-fleet-1907
The fleet was greeted almost everywhere it called with crowds waving American flags. The highlight of the long deployment was probably the foreign port visits to New Zealand and Australia in August and September 1908. The 'Fleet Week' parades and celebrations in Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne and Albany were perfect pandemoniums.

Copy%20of%20Naval-Parade-Mel


Read the full article >>

Tuesday, 4 December 2007

The American Churchill

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (1858-1919), the greatest and youngest President of those United States of America. (P.S. except for Lincoln)

Above: 1903 official portrait by John Singer Sargent (in T.R.'s words, a "man's portrait" by a "real man's artist").

TO CALL TEDDY ROOSEVELT the American Churchill might not be entirely perfect, comparisons never are, but does perfectly convey the esteem in which I hold him (on some qualities, I would rank T.R. the better). Like a biography on Churchill, a biography on Roosevelt leaves the reader with an heroic and implausible life's tale that is difficult to fathom and surprising to contrast. Animated by an indomitable spirit, both men seem larger than life and bigger than history.

To begin with, both served in their respective armies, headed their respective navies and led their respective countries; both were serious historians and gifted orators, and both read and wrote voraciously; both were Freemasons, Nobel laureates and Kipling imperialists; both were men of the greatest integrity, and possessed of the most irreproachable personal virtue, for whom loyalty was a core quality; both shared a fraternity to Anglo-Americanism and both were horrified and exasperated by the unwillingness of their opponents to save civilization when it needed to be saved - Churchill with Chamberlain, Roosevelt with Wilson. Isolated or ostracised, both stood virtually alone in a flood of filth against a tide of evil.

The image of Roosevelt rightfully stands alongside Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln on Mount Rushmore as a colossal figure of the American experience. This is astounding when you consider that the great man was neither a founding father, nor a serving president during a turbulent period in the Great Republic's history. Yet, on the list of greatest presidents, scholars consistently rank T.R. among the very top with an average placement score of 4.83 out of 42 presidents. Only Lincoln (1.58), F.D.R. (2.00), Washington (2.83) and Jefferson (4.42) rank higher, all of whom faced the titanic upheavals of revolutionary, civil or world war. Without an epic struggle by which to stake his claim with the best, Teddy was left to win it on his personality.

That legendary personality introduced America to the arena of international power politics, thrusting aside the American tradition of isolationism. Under Roosevelt's leadership (1901-1909), the American navy went from fourth largest in the world to largest after the grand British Imperial Fleet. Henceforth, the United States would "speak softly and carry a big stick" (his phrase), admittedly sometimes too softly (Wilson, Eisenhower, Carter), sometimes with too much stick (Johnson/Nixon, "Dubya"). Better than all his peers, T.R. exemplified manly virtue, understanding the delicate balance between manly restraint and manly assertiveness in the effective wielding of state power.

The great conservationist (way ahead of his time on that one) also exemplified conservative virtue with both feet firmly anchored to Nature's ground, who wasn't prone to Wilsonian liberal idealism that has affected most every president since, including the current incumbent in "making the world safe for democracy". Although Woodrow Wilson is ranked highly in his own right, it is nonetheless remarkable that Roosevelt is rated higher by scholars, even though Wilson led the United States through the Great War, albeit not until very late in the game. We know that Roosevelt thought the president "weak" up to 1917, that if it were up to him, America would have been in the thick of it in 1914. Knowing this, Churchill's "great Ifs accumulate" with untold American divisions irresistibly poring into Europe at the outset, becoming battle hardened in Flanders and Ypres in 1915 and marching on to Mons by 1916. No Verdun, no Somme, no Passchendaele, no mass disillusionment. A dramatic altering of the balance of power on the continent would have been impossible for the Germans to ignore. With the benefit of hindsight, we are entertained with the thought of Roosevelt at the helm, the idea that some semblance of the Old World just might have been maintained. But sadly we will never know. Like Churchill, I doubt we will ever see his likes again.

"Of all the public men that I have known, on both sides of the Atlantic (and there are few that I have not known in the past thirty years), he stands out the greatest, and as the most potent influence for good upon the life of his generation."
- Viscount Lee of Fareham, English statesman


Read the full article >>

Monday, 7 May 2007

AMERICA'S QUEEN

Presidents have come and gone but Her Majesty remains. For me, a subject of this vast English-Speaking Kingdom, the Royal Visit to America invokes that ancient sense of belonging together as a single people born of a common mother. The Queen herself embodies the mystic chords of our collective memory, in a way that no other human being can. Gone are the national prejudices when Americans feel a special bond to my Queen. We are in these moments connected as one, and I for one would like it to stay that way.

The Queen (when Princess Elizabeth) with President Truman (President from 1945-53) in Washington in 1951.

The Queen meets Marilyn Monroe prior to the Royal Command Film Performance of 'The Prince and the Showgirl' at the Empire Theatre in London in October 1956.

The Queen meets Judy Garland at the Royal Variety Performance held at the London Palladium in November 1957.

The Queen, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne with President Eisenhower (President from 1953-61) at Balmoral Castle in 1959.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh with President and Mrs Kennedy (President from 1961-63) at Buckingham Palace in 1961.

The Royal Family meet American Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins at Buckingham Palace in October 1969. The astronauts were in London as part of their world tour following their historic moon landing.

The Queen with President Nixon (President from 1969-74) and Sir Edward Heath during a visit to Chequers in 1970.

The Queen dancing with President Ford (President from 1974-77) at the White House in 1976.

The Queen with President Carter (President from 1977-81) at Buckingham Palace in 1977.

The Queen with President Reagan (President from 1981-89) riding at Windsor in 1982.

The Queen with President Bush (President from 1989-93) at Buckingham Palace in 1989.

The Queen with President Clinton (President from 1993-2001) and his family at Buckingham Palace in 2000.

The Queen meets Madonna at the World Premiere of the James Bond film 'Die Another Day' at the Royal Albert Hall in November 2002.

The Queen with President George W Bush (President from 2001-present) at Buckingham Palace in 2003.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda meet The Queen at Buckingham Palace, March 2005. The businessman was awarded an honourary knighthood by Her Majesty for his charity work.


© Press Association photos via Royal Insight


Read the full article >>

Sunday, 6 May 2007

Declaration of Interdependence

A second letter from America to our British friends.
by Gene Poteat and William Anderson


MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES AGO we Americans thought it necessary to send you, our British cousins, a declaration which brought about a permanent separation of our political systems. Yet we retained a reverence for those freedoms which have always characterized our heritage. In a spirit of fraternal fellowship, and with equal urgency, we now write a second time.

First, we recognize that the last century has been one of critical challenges and hazards in which, together, we have triumphed in the face of mortal dangers. That partnership, then vital for victory, is now in jeopardy. Our military and economic cooperation are well known. Less fully appreciated, yet of equal importance, has been our close alliance in matters of intelligence, technology, and national security.

For example, we greatly appreciated your sending us the Zimmerman telegram, which proposed a German-Mexican alliance, just before World War I. We know you appreciated our response. This unprecedented sharing of the most sensitive intelligence continued throughout World War II and the Cold War, with the inevitable result--victory. This sharing of intelligence still continues, even expanding to include participation in and a degree of control of America's most sophisticated intelligence collection systems. Further, the sharing of nuclear weapons, submarine ballistic missile technology, and stealth aircraft makes a clear statement to our adversaries, as well as the rest of the world.

We are also aware that this close fraternal tie has not been without occasional bouts of dyspepsia for you. Your perspective at times has been that our manners

are coarse, our politics arcane, and our assistance less than timely. And in candor, your criticisms sometimes have merit. More than that, we are aware that your elite establishment and media thoroughly detest us. They seem eager to make common cause with those of similar perspective across the Channel, so as to exclude us from Europe and from the special relationship that we have enjoyed with you for almost a century.

We, on the other hand, forbear to embrace attitudes of antipathy toward you. We rather like you British, actually. True, we see you as a bit on the stuffy side, but on the whole we respect your love of freedom, your prudence, and your splendid use of our sometimes common language.

But now comes a message from you that the British future will no longer be tied to America and the English speaking nations. Now not only your transnational elite, but your entire citizenry appear prepared to scuttle the special relationship that has served us all so well, we thought. Opinion polls indicate that the British public believes that America is the main focus of evil and danger in the modern world, and that close integration with the European Union is the preferred measure for future alliance building.

It might be tempting to assume that you can have it all--to embrace the European Union, even with its regulatory baggage and democratic deficit, while retaining such ties with America and the Anglosphere as would enhance British economic and military security. With deepest regret, we suggest that this will not happen.

The European Union has its own perspective on international affairs and the disciplines which support them. Its position may fairly be summarized by the assumption that the world is no longer a very dangerous place. Or that it would not be were it not for irresponsible Americans. Any international disputes should be manageable, they believe, by skilled diplomacy and the application of international law as developed by the United Nations and other supranational institutions. If only the Americans would abandon their propensity to act unilaterally, in ignorance of the received wisdom of the world community, best expressed by the view from Brussels. There is no room for America or the Commonwealth in this formulation.

With deepest respect, this view is a dangerous fantasy. Law without sanction is not law. Law without force to sustain it is idle dreaming. A worldwide totalitarian movement has declared war on our common civilization. No collection of resolutions, however cleverly drafted, will restrain it. Thus, the notion of the European Union that this challenge may be met by the means of criminal law is fatally flawed.

The special relationship between Great Britain and the United States has had many facets. The most important ones have had to do with military coordination and, especially, the sharing of intelligence. If and when you decide to cast your lot with the European Union, this coordination and sharing will likely end. The European Union is establishing its own rules regarding intelligence sharing and will insist that you follow them. We, on

the other hand, recognize that the European Union considers itself our competitor and, frequently, our antagonist. Thus we cannot integrate our most sensitive information systems with them. In short, you must choose.

In doing so, we urge you to keep some things in mind: America is the world's greatest economic and military power, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The trajectory of these factors will be increasingly unfavorable to the European Union because of the relentless demographics of their shrinking and aging populations. The developing multicultural makeup of Europe brings with it inevitable dilution of the perspectives and values once thought to comprise Western civilization.

As we see it, the United Kingdom is considering debarking from a sturdy ship and climbing onto a sinking one. In doing so, you would abandon your only true friends. We should not need to remind you that these include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and some of the Commonwealth, as well as ourselves.

Perhaps you have already made up your minds. Perhaps it is already too late. But think about what you are giving up.

We will not turn our backs on you. Yet, if you integrate your intelligence services with the European Union, there is only so much we can do. We will try our best to aid you in the great struggle that is now beginning. The gathering storm is there for all but the willfully blind to see. But we will have a greater chance for victory if, as before, we fight together.

Gene Poteat is president of the Association for Intelligence Officers. William Anderson is a Lecturer at Harvard University.


Read the full article >>

Thursday, 26 April 2007

A new direction on foreign policy thinking

by Matt Bondy, the Guelph Mercury

Is it time for Canada and her principle allies to seriously re-think their security and defence arrangements? Is it possible that Canada’s dogmatic discipleship of the UN has rendered too little progress in an increasingly multi-polar world? Is it obvious that the UN, at least as it relates to security, has proved itself incapable of stopping genocides, strengthening democracy abroad and discouraging the pursuit of nuclear arms and aggressive ideologies by rogue states? Is there any reasonable alternative to the status quo? One hopes – and perhaps not in vain.

Support for the Anglosphere is on the rise among centrist and right-leaning political thinkers and commentators across the US and abroad. At its basic level, the idea of the Anglosphere boils down to this: a significant re-think of Canadian foreign policy – and the foreign policies of our four major allies including the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand – is long overdue, given the ascendancy of anti Western forces in virtually every hemisphere, and the robust relationships being forged between them. Canada, the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand ought to form a deep political alliance, based on shared security priorities and free trade.

After all, not since the Cold War has the supremacy of liberal democratic states, anchored in the North Atlantic, been so vulnerable to challenge by totalitarian states abroad. The promise of American hegemony has expired, and threats are crystalising in every region of the globe. For example?

China continues its massive economic awakening, which has also spurred an arms build-up. The country recently announced it will increase annual defence spending by a substantial 12.6% in 2007. This is a communist country. Enough said.

Under former KGB head Vladimir Putin, Russia has recently taken many regressive steps. These include major arms sales to Iran, curbing domestic civil and political liberties and taking verbal shots at the United States about America’s proposed missile defence and interceptor fortifications in Eastern Europe. To boot, Putin has managed to secure and expand the influence of fellow Soviet hardliners in his administration and in neighbouring Chechnya.

And Iran. As a result of the capture and release of the 15 Royal Navy personnel some weeks ago, Iran has lurched toward expanded regional spokesmanship, giving neighbouring Iraq and other Arab nations a taste of what an Iranian-centric Middle East would feel like. If Russia’s diplomatic courtship of the Islamic Republic continues, Iranian primacy in the region could become a reality.

But the Anglosphere is not only a response to storms that may be forming on the horizon; it also calls on Canada and her chief allies to maximise on the compatibility of their political and economic cultures. This family of liberal democracies, built on the values of individual rights, economic liberty, common law and a strong civil society, may have much to gain from featuring shared interests more prominently in both their domestic policies and security arrangements. The increasingly free flow of goods, investment, services, people, ideas, research and information technology could deeply entrench the Anglosphere as the global hub of industrial progress.

Whether the Anglosphere is the right answer to external challenges and the right catalyst for internal growth and prosperity depends on many factors, but the Anglosphere holds its water as a broad policy-orientation. After all, the economies of these countries are strong and already interlinked, their militaries are deeply interoperable and their values and interests are similarly aligned - if only because the interests of liberal democracies are always rooted in the preservation and expansion of political and economic liberty. This all we have in common.

The viability of the Anglosphere as a security and economic alliance centres on three questions: is Great Britain prepared to decisively abandon the dream of a European federal state? Is Oceania prepared to shift its tack from regional integration to a broadly North Atlantic-oriented foreign policy? And is Canada ready to shirk off the peace-keeping, UN-defending mentality that, paired with its neglect of the armed forces, has facilitated its tragic decline in international relevance? Only if ‘Yes’ is the answer to these questions, can a genuinely global Anglosphere be realised.

For the three bedrock nations of Canada, the UK and the US, moving forward with a deeper alliance would require only a shift in emphasis – not a complete policy overhaul. Signs of embryonic Anglospherism have already emerged between the UK and the US as these countries put shared interests above Euro-centric opposition to the Iraq War. Had Canada chosen to support the war in Iraq more overtly (instead of quietly increasing troop levels in Afghanistan to free up allied resources for Iraq), perhaps the concept would have achieved critical mass even before time of writing – but nevermind. Recent shifts in Canadian foreign policy may be enough to signal our interest in closer ties with Anglosphere nations, notwithstanding our opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

* * *

Now, the qualifier. Canada should tirelessly promote comprehensive UN reform – specifically Security Council reform. It is unequivocally in Canada’s long term interest for the global community of nations to move toward a rules-based system of politics and conflict, featuring a United Nations that wisely and decisively acts to reduce violence and facilitate political stability. That is the asterisk that looms large over ideas like the ones presented in this column. But that the UN is presently incapable of achieving these venerable goals is an existential reality.

There is no need to abandon the dream of an efficient, fair and viable United Nations. But until that time comes – and in case it never does – Canada needs international security and economic arrangements that advance her interests and protect her citizens. Enter the Anglosphere.

Reprinted here with the express permission of the author


Read the full article >>

Monday, 23 April 2007

The Importance of Being English: The Quest for an English Identity

By Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, St. George’s Day, 2007

“If I were not French, I would wish to be English”, said a Frenchman seeking to flatter Lord Palmerston. “If I were not English, I would wish to be English”, replied His Lordship. When Queen Victoria’s steely Prime Minister uttered those memorable words, winning a double-word score by simultaneously managing to praise England and stick it to the French, few Englishmen would have disagreed. Some might have wondered why he had bothered to state the obvious. Palmerston’s England was self-assured and self-aware. The English knew they were blessed by God and by golly it was their duty to spread that blessing as far as they could, from the darkest corners of their own island to the farthest reaches of the globe. It mattered not one jot or tittle that no-one had actually requested their intercession. It was true that the transmission of Albion’s seed was to take place under a recently created “Union” flag, but everyone knew that the English called the shots. Johnny foreigner’s inability to distinguish between “England” and “Britain” was proof of this.

How remarkable then that the English nation today suffers Europe’s greatest identity crisis. Whilst Estonians, Croats, Scots and Montenegrins gorge themselves on lavish portions of national bluster, the English scavenge for scraps. Europe’s finest nation is lost and confused. It is surely the supreme irony that England’s current malaise has been caused by its greatest creation: Britain. Does this mean that England’s survival requires the destruction of the United Kingdom?

As the protagonists in the British story, generations of Englishmen, secure in their identity, were happy to offer up their cherished ideals and values and have them woven into a new British national fabric. The creation of British symbols and institutions blurred the distinction between England and Britain ever further. Elevation of Britishness above Englishness posed few problems whilst there were pink bits on the map and even the retreat from Empire failed to dent the Englishman’s devotion to the Union. But in Scotland and Wales the gradual weakening of British power caused many to question the continuing relevance of imperial symbols and institutions and even of the Union itself.

History tells us that where union between states is achieved, its foremost advocates will belong to the dominant state. The strong exert greatest influence, we all know that. We also know that smaller states, fearing assimilation, are more likely to foster and maintain their pre-existing cultures and traditions. Whilst the English, Serbs and Prussians thought of themselves firstly as British, Yugoslav or German, the same could not be said for their junior partners (Scots, Bosnians, Bavarians). We find evidence of this in the New World as well: many American southerners belong to Dixie first and the USA second; in Canada the residents of Ontario, Canada’s most powerful province, are the most likely to identify with nation before province.

As Scots and Welsh and Irish celebrate their rich cultural legacy and bask in their Celtic identity, dipping into the vast stores of tradition that earlier generations have preserved, the English appear bereft of culture and burdened by the guilt of what is perceived as a racist and imperialist past, thereby ensuring that any budding pride is well and truly nipped. Such is the degree to which England and Britain are entwined in the public psyche that the major role played by the Scots in the expansion of Empire, and in its nefarious excesses, has been forgotten, obscured by the myth of Braveheart and the struggle against English oppression. It is the English alone who are to blame for Britain’s past wrongs and whilst other inhabitants of these isles may celebrate their national pride with impunity, similar English expressions are attacked as racist. Quite what the rest of the United Kingdom was doing whilst England was colonizing, lopping hands off and stripping resources boggles the mind. The bizarre double-standard reached its apogee upon the election of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of England’s capital city. Shortly after attaining office Red Ken turned Green, allocating funds for a parade honouring St. Patrick but banning one in honour of St. George. The celebration of Englishness was deemed insensitive and divisive. Ken has a point though, as any film buff will attest, the English tendency to evil is indisputable. Has anyone ever seen a Hollywood film where the villain did not speak RP?

Partly due to such negative stereotyping, supporters of Englishness have for many decades retreated to that which is cozy and unassertive: warm beer, bicycling vicars, picnicking in front of a car’s exhaust and watching belled and tassled fetishists bash each other with sticks. It is English Lite. For many, to whom overt displays of patriotism are vulgar and decidedly un-English, this castrated hey nonny no has been sufficient. An Englishman’s pride was always serene and personal. And so it remained. And all was good. However the English have finally awoken to the fact that patriotic fervour has enabled the other inhabitants of this island to accrue considerable benefits, often at English expense. And this offends that most sacred of English values: fair play.

The English did not object to the creation of a Scottish parliament or a Welsh assembly, neither have they raised a fuss over the issue of Scottish over-representation at Westminster; but they object vehemently to those same Scottish MPs meddling in English domestic affairs, particularly when they secure the passage of English-only legislation which would otherwise have failed. That’s just not cricket. As the wealthy partners in the Union the English did not mind giving the others a leg up, even if it meant that more money was spent per head in Scotland and Wales than in England. But to see these subsidies lead to vast improvements in Scottish hospitals and schools whilst their English counterparts lay mired in squalor is simply not on. The English see their neighbours rewarded for throwing the rattle out of the pram. Such clear injustices rankle, particularly when those whom the English subsidise add insult to injury by supporting which ever country opposes England on the playing field. That really is too much! Like a baited bear in a Southwark pit, England has been roused and is preparing to defend itself.

Drake’s drum may have yet to sound, but a renewed and invigorated England is reacquainting itself with its traditions, its culture and its symbols. Where once the Union Jack greeted English teams, the St. George’s Cross now flutters. Content to sing God Save the Queen whilst the disloyal Welsh and Scots sang their own “national” anthems, the supporters of English sport are now contemplating Jerusalem. Once an activity of the quaint and eccentric, the exchange of St. George’s Day cards grows from year to year. And, significantly, an Englishman is now as likely to identify himself as English as he is likely to say he is British. Most importantly, that Englishman may be of Asian, Afro-Caribbean or European descent: twenty-first century Englishness reflects twenty-first century England.

Such displays may stiffen the sinews, but they are meaningless without a proper appreciation of England’s contributions to civilization. To truly establish an English identity, its people must reclaim and celebrate as their own, those values and concepts which have become an established part of the British character: from tolerance, justice and the rule of law to the Monarchy, Parliament and the English language, each is as English as it is British. Only then can England be said to have found itself.

© Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, 2007.
(Reprinted here with the express permission of the author)
------------------------------------------------------
About the Author:

Rafal Heydel-Mankoo is the Editor and co-author of Burke’s Peerage & Gentry: World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, a 2,000 page reference work which has been hailed as “the definitive study” and “a classic…unlikely to be replaced for at least a century”. Born in the UK and educated in Canada, Rafal now lives in London. Rafal is one of Canada’s principal royal commentators and pundits. He has provided live television commentary for events including the Golden Jubilee of HM The Queen, the funeral of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales.

A former director of the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada, former Director of the International Churchill Society and a past Ottawa branch Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, Rafal is a Trustee of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust, a Commissioner for the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry and a Council Member of the Royal Stuart Society. In 2002 Rafal was decorated by the Canadian Crown in recognition of his work educating Canadians about the monarchy. Rafal is a Knight of Merit of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St. George, a Knight Commander of the Order of the Crested Crane (Rwanda) and a Commander of the Order of the Lion (Ethiopia).


Read the full article >>

Wednesday, 18 April 2007

Overcoming Cultural Self-Hatred

John O'Sullivan reviews A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 by Andrew Roberts

'LES Anglo-Saxons," argues Andrew Roberts, were united by the English language and by the Common Law. Still more links were listed by Winston Churchill in 1943: "Common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice and above all a love of personal freedom . . . these are the common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-speaking peoples."

...

Unfortunately, as Roberts demonstrates, major obstacles persistently obstruct our staying together.

For the first three-quarters of the last century the largest such obstacle was America's anti-imperialism. This began as the result of a national myth that exaggerated the oppressive character of George III's rule and exalted America as a revolutionary power hostile to all imperialism but especially the British sort.

In fact, the British Empire was a liberal one. And though the United States was self-consciously anti-imperialist, its "grand strategy" bore a strong resemblance to Palmerston's definition of British imperial policy: "Trade without the flag where possible; trade with the flag where necessary."

In other words, the United States and Britain were pursuing similar policies in practice, but their rhetoric and self-understanding were different and even opposed. And these theoretical disagreements were not strong enough to prevent the rapprochement that began in 1895 and was cemented by World War II.

Still, the effects of U.S. anti-imperialism linger. Because the demise of the last European empires coincided with the Vietnam War, the charge of imperialism was quickly turned against the United States itself.

More significant, since Americans still like to think they are anti-imperialists, the charge of imperialism has the effect of hobbling U.S. foreign policy: Either Washington shrinks from necessary interventions or it shrinks from staying long enough to ensure that difficult interventions succeed.

A second obstacle to Anglo unity, fully and worrisomely acknowledged by Roberts, is the emergence in the English-speaking countries of a cultural self-hatred. There is now a substantial lumpen intelligentsia of teachers, clergymen and "knowledge workers" whose first reaction to almost any international controversy is to "blame America (or England, or Australia, etc.) first."

It might be easier to recover from this malady were it not for a third problem: the appeal of competing identities.

A few years ago, all the English-speaking countries seemed to be spinning outward into new identities based in part on geography: Britain was said to be becoming "European Australia embracing an "Asian" identity; the United States choosing a Hispanic-flavored multiculturalism; the Canadians constructing a "new Canadian nationalism" rooted in anti-Americanism, etc.

This boded ill for any prospect that the English-speaking world would continue to operate with its old cohesion. But, with the sad exception of Britain (still being absorbed against the popular will into a regulatory European state based on Roman Law), these fashions have gone into sharp reverse owing to 9/11, the challenge of jihadism and the worldwide communications revolution (which has raised culture above geography).

Can the English-speaking peoples overcome these obstacles to continue playing their hegemonic role of the 20th century into the future? The prospects are not good, if we are thinking of the traditional definition of the English-speaking peoples - i.e., the United States, Britain and the "white Dominions." But another definition is at hand, namely the Anglosphere.

The Anglosphere includes nations such as India, where the English language and culture may be emerging as the single most important element in a multiethnic society. It's perhaps the first monolingual multicultural identity in history and as such able to encompass diverse groups within itself.

This civilizational identity is matched in practical politics by strategic developments such as an emerging Indo-U.S. military alliance. And, thanks to some geopolitical Fairy Godmother (who looks oddly like Osama bin Laden), almost all the candidates for Anglosphere membership have had war declared on them by the jihadists. So the fourth great challenge - jihadism - may deepen, extend and prolong the life of the English-speaking world.


Read the full article >>

Monday, 12 March 2007

A truly British Broadcasting Corp...

The excellent Shire Network News has just put out its latest podcast; it is, as usual, superb. The quick, misanthropic wit of Tom Paine et al, and their unflinching commitment to liberty, victory over terror, and support of the Britannic inheritance, is positively inspiring as well as being consistently - frequently painfully - hilarious. Laugh and learn and cheer up: for though things look ever so glum, these dark times are leading to a breadth and depth of engaged support for the Anglosphere increasingly unprecedented in vigour and intelligence. Their archives hold interviews with Andrew Roberts and Mark Steyn (amongst others), and we would recommend subcsribing to them (free!) on iTunes if - as we suspect - they turn out to be your kind of thing.



With contributors from London, Melbourne, Toronto, Virginia and elsewhere, this is a truly British show (in Beaverbrook's articulate generalised use of that term). The only way we would venture to improve it, would be, of course, to have it broadcast in place of that loathsome, gurgling, grot, the 'Today' show on Radio 4, or some other equally dispensable half an hour (hard to pick really...) on the BBC's many tax-funded and utterly useless stations.


Read the full article >>

Sunday, 11 March 2007

Proud to be among the English-speaking peoples

This little gem of an article is from today's Ottawa Citizen and it is another review of Andrew Robert's A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, described as being "aimed at the sort of audience that used to read history, fine biographies and good novels in the same spirit: that "elevated general reader."

The reviewer, David Warren, begins by defining the term "Anglosphere" as those countries "whose primary language is English, and whose legal, political, cultural and religious traditions are directly descended from Britain and Magna Carta" and furthermore, united in "a common-sense view of the world that is distinguishable from continental Europe's."

Quickly running over Canada's special situation which, to Warren, "could be an important bridge across the 'English Channel of the mind,'he then gets to the book's main warning as we start this new century - the "fourth great test, against what has been called 'Islamofascism.' Will the Anglosphere again stand united, in defence of the West?" The answer is not one to appeal to optimists:

Roberts takes this as an open question. He is distressed by demographics and by "multiculturalism." Massive immigration from dysfunctional Third World states is transforming our societies, especially in leading urban centres, and our educational systems have "progressed" to reflect a demented cultural relativism, in which our own English-speaking heritage is disowned, barbarous ideas are substituted piecemeal, and a void is created into which all kinds of horrors may be sucked.

We are no longer assimilating immigrants and winning them over to our language and outlook; we are instead surrendering everything we stand for.

Nevertheless, Roberts sees hope as members of the Anglosphere defend their values together in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reviewer too mentions how Bush invited Roberts to lunch at the White House last week after he had finished reading the book, and apparently Cheney was reading it while in hospital.

The review ends with a plea I believe strikes at the heart of all us here;
English-speaking intellectuals should devote a lot more thought to the Anglosphere, to what it has been and could be.


Read the full article >>

Tuesday, 6 March 2007

Lord Black and the Anglosphere

By Gideon Rachman, Financial Times

Like many a newspaper magnate, Lord Black was more interested in prestige and politics than in business. But he was no dilettante. In fact, before the fall, he was a thoughtful promoter of conservative ideas.

He was particularly fired by the notion of an “Anglosphere”. A fierce Eurosceptic, Lord Black believed in an alliance of English-speaking nations. John Hulsman, who worked at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank, argues that, in his heyday, Lord Black was “pivotal” to the Anglosphere. His encouragement and money helped pull together a crew of conservative intellectuals, on both sides of the Atlantic, who believe that the English-speaking world is a coherent bloc – and the only reliable guardian of political and economic freedoms.

The most vigorous promoters of the Anglosphere include historians such as Robert Conquest and Andrew Roberts. Politicians, past and present, such as Lady Thatcher and Alexander Downer, the Australian foreign minister, are known sympathisers. President George W. Bush has boasted of reading Mr Roberts’ A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, which sets out the Anglospheric world view. There is even an Anglosphere Institute, although it is not an encouraging sign that its contact address is a PO Box in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The believers in the Anglosphere differ on the details. Some limit the true members of the club to just five countries: the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Others cast the net much wider to include India, Ireland, the Caribbean and English-speaking Africa.

Some want to see the Anglosphere develop formal institutions. Others argue that the essence of the club is that it relies on informal ties of history, culture and kinship.

The cultural ties linking the Anglosphere are, indeed, deep. But they are also changing as America becomes more Hispanic and Britain becomes more European. According to Britain’s Institute for Public Policy Research, there are 1.3m Britons living in Australia and 678,000 living in the US. But there are also 761,000 living in Spain and 200,000 in France.

Politically, the Anglosphere is also coming under strain. The outbreak of the Iraq war initially served as a boost. After France and Germany opposed the war – but Britain and Australia rallied to the cause – US conservatives began to take seriously long-ignored warnings from their British counterparts about the evils of the European Union. But, as the war has grown more unpopular, so it has eroded ties of sympathy within the Anglosphere. An opinion survey conducted by Globespan in January found that 57 per cent of Britons and 60 per cent of Australians now believe that America’s global role is “mainly negative”. Even the Chinese (52 per cent) took a more positive view. A previous Globespan survey in 2005 found that more than 60 per cent of Britons, Australians and Canadians now want Europe to be “more influential” than the US.

But while the Iraq war points in one direction, the fighting in Afghanistan points in the other. In a recent debate in Britain’s House of Commons, politicians from all sides lamented that most of the European members of Nato are effectively opting out of the fighting. Only Britain, the US, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands were deemed willing to fight and die.

The presence of the Dutch might jar for those who would see the Afghanistan campaign as the Anglosphere in operation. But that would be a mistake. For the Dutch seem to have effectively joined the Anglos. They usually speak better English than the English, they voted decisively against the EU constitution and – this is the clincher – they are the only country that is not a former British colony to take part in this month’s cricket World Cup.

In his pomp, Lord Black might have seized upon the Afghanistan campaign as evidence that, in spite of current tensions, there is an underlying unity of English-speaking peoples. These days he has more pressing matters on his mind. Indeed, it is tempting to see the Black trial as a symbol of the decline of the political project that he is most associated with. But the Anglosphere idea is a resilient one with deep historical roots, which may yet rebound. His Lordship may not be so lucky.


Read the full article >>

Tuesday, 20 February 2007

The European Union of Socialist Republics

In furtherance of what Dundonald was talking about, James Lewis weighs in at the American Thinker:

"If you follow the big European media in their English editions, things look pretty dismal. Just check out BBC "News" Online for the latest propaganda blast from the international Left. The Beeb is the new Pravda; its highest priority is to promote the European Union of Socialist Republics, the EU, headquartered in Brussels. In London itself, Parliament has progressively less to say about British law than the EU does, feeding tens of thousands of Euro-directives into Britain, to control more and more of everyday life including new kinds of criminal offenses like politically incorrect speech, foreign and trade policy, and a nascent Euro-military. The Royal Navy was just cut in half, presumably to feed the welfare system and make way for the European Army. In the new European Union of Socialist Republics, every haulage truck will be monitored by satellite to make sure that it drives exactly where it's told to, doesn't pollute, and doesn't drive too fast. Private cars are next.

If you read the European media in their own languages (or use web translation) things looks even worse. Domestic audiences in Europe get hefty doses of Politically Correct dogma, simply filled with obsessive anti-Americanism. Europe's ruling class needs an enemy to sell their people on the scam of the EU. National loyalties are constantly being undermined, and the EU is trying to inculcate an artificial Euro-patriotism instead...

It's not called the European Union, with its echoes of the Soviet Union, just by accident. Like the old Soviet Union the EU is a hierarchy of bureaucratic committees ("soviet" means committee), it claims to be democratic, peace-loving and internationalist, and it is run purely from the top. It is also in the habit of constantly lying to the public, with few visible consequences."


Read the full article >>

Saturday, 17 February 2007

The English-Speaking Century

by Keith Windschuttle

In the past one hundred years, four successive political movements—Prussian militarism, German Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and international Communism—mounted military campaigns to conquer Europe, Asia, and the world. Had any of them prevailed, it would have been a profound loss for civilization as we know it. Yet over the course of these bids for power, a coalition headed first by Britain and then by the United States emerged not just to oppose but to destroy them utterly.

From the long perspective of human affairs, these victories must stand as among the most remarkable of the past three millennia. They were as decisive for world history as the victories of the ancient Greeks over Persia, of Rome over Carthage, and of the Franks over the Umayyad Caliphate.

Continue reading The English-speaking century...


Read the full article >>

Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Young Winston

The greatest Briton, surely, though many of his fellow Britons proved and continue to prove themselves unworthy of him. Our brave old lion, stalwart defender of the sacred Crown and leader of the English-speaking peoples! He is, in some respects, an effectual patron saint for this blog; and a perpetual rebuke to the grotty, shameless politicians we are so unlucky to have today. (With some exceptions).


So the Monarchist reader will no doubt be happy to hear the good news that Richard Attenborough’s 1972 film ‘Young Winston’ has just been released on DVD for the first time. It lacks some of the charm of ‘My Early Life’, Churchill’s boffo autobiography (still available in a beautiful paperback from Eland), but remains an excellent piece, featuring much of its content, a film of awesome scope and home to some remarkable performances.

It takes in everything from Churchill’s cavalry charge against the Dervishes (who scream ‘Allahu Ackbar’ as they attack, oh how the times don’t change), his unsuccessful days at school (here we might have done without the rather seedy beating scenes), his midnight escape from a Boer prisoner-of-war camp, and his early years in Parliament. Simon Ward looks uncannily like the young Churchill, and does a great job of his snarling, flighty brand of eloquence.

Like the book, the film is a continually impressive, inspiring account of a great man’s formation. There’s none of the silly nonsense of ‘finding oneself’, or self-exploration, or backpacking in Thailand, that constitutes the present-day ‘development’ into adulthood. Instead we have an illustration in bravery, patriotism and good humour that all would do well to learn from.

Read the book first, and set aside a spring evening for the film. It goes down well with a brandy and a cigar, and a roaring fire, and a happy stomach full of some roast joint.


Read the full article >>

Monday, 12 February 2007

Amidst the Wreckage

I just finished slagging Christopher Hitchens for his past assertions, and then he goes and writes something like this:

"[Robert Conquest] goes beyond the usual admonitions against Jacobinism and more recent totalitarian utopias, and argues for "the Anglosphere," that historic arc of law, tradition and individual liberty that extends from Scotland to Australia and takes in the two largest multicultural democracies on the planet--the U.S. and India.

There was a time when this might have seemed quixotic or even nostalgic (at least to me), but when one surveys the wreckage of other concepts, and the increasing difficulties of the only rival "model" in the form of the European Union (of which he was an early skeptic) the notion seems to have a future as well as a past."

Beaverbrook


Read the full article >>

Wednesday, 31 January 2007

Taking on Churchill's Mantle

The New York Sun today has an interesting review of Andrew Robert's new book, a History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900. It's over the top in its praise, mind you - to wit: "From every point of view, Mr. Roberts stands in comparison with the giant on whose shoulders he sits..." (ahem, not bloody likely) - but well worth the review all the same.

That Mr. Roberts dares to challenge the contemporary orthodoxy and anti-patriot "assumption that history is a matter of impersonal abstractions — globalization, secularization, decolonization, urbanization, or any number of others — rather than of individuals and peoples" of course resonates with me, as it would the followers of this blog. The book proclaims with confidence that the 21st century will belong to the "Anglosphere", just as the 20th belonged to America and the 19th belonged to the British Empire, which I suppose is a way of saying that whereas the 19th was an age of empires, the 20th that of nation-states, the 21st century will belong to the individual, now more self-reliant, mobile and technologically connected than ever before, more or less independently living and working within the confines of his or her own cultural-linguistic space. And what network civilisation values more the liberty, livelihood, creativity, capital and sovereignty of its people?

"Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples" may sound anachronistic to all those who themselves, ironically enough, are stuck in a late 20th century frame of mind, one that values the pre-eminence of nation-states in the affairs of citizens. But the nation-state is in decline as an organising principle, a development that is to be welcomed in my opinion, save as a bulwark against the consolidating tyranny of global terrorism, continental statism, or even international bureaucratisation and world government. The point here is that while we recognize that all politics is local, as it should be, it is only natural for people to reach out past their immediate communities in a technological world, and interconnect in a culturally coherent way with others who also embrace the same shared language, history, habits and symbols.

Because modern nations do not own or have a monopoly on culture, or on connecting people to it - indeed, more often that not, they are brutal destroyers of it, undermining longheld tradition, habits and beliefs; emasculating our ancient symbols with cheap national logos; forgetting or revising history in a way that conforms to a new nationalist or transnationalist vision; and engaging in cultural protectionism that shields citizens from cross-border competition, stifling freedom and promoting mediocrity at home. But more than anything perhaps, has been the disturbing reliance by Western governments to use the power and apparatus of the state to enforce culturally relativistic ideas, to employ official "multiculturalism" as politically correct group thought - to, in effect, live in a state of cultural self-denial! And therein partly lies its undoing.

Just as Churchill was right to believe that a loosely bound, strongly interwoven people should not tolerate the assertions of a written constitution, which implies any dimunition to their liberty and independence, nor should they tolerate the assertions of a national government, which as a faction of Parliamentary democracy, has a disturbing ability to accrete unaccountable power to itself over time. Be that as it may, the unrivalled economic prosperity of our times is making government less and less relevant to its voters, who are wealthier, more mobile and more self-reliant than ever before, which is why the long gradual decline and fall of the nation-state is well under way.

So behold the realm of the sovereign individual. Like their Royal Sovereign Queen, may they forever reign supreme!


Read the full article >>

Sunday, 31 December 2006

Saddam's Downfall- When he underestimated the English-speaking World

The tsunami that hit Taiwan has screwed up all Internet connections apparently for the next three weeks here in Asia, but while I've the day off I should try to share an article by Andrew Roberts writing in today's Independent where he compares Saddam with Stalin, suggesting in the end Stalin's key to survival was paying heed to Churchill's call at Fulton for a determined stand by English-speaking countries.



The history of the English-speaking peoples since 1900 is so replete with the phenomenon of dictators underestimating the resolve of American and British leaders that Saddam had no excuse. He had endless examples from the past - from Paul Kruger to the Kaiser, from Adolf Hitler to Mossadeq to General Galtieri - of strong men who took it for granted that the English-speaking powers could be mocked indefinitely, to no effect.

He ends his analysis with these words:

Saddam was not destroyed because he was a monster - there are plenty of those in the world, from Robert Mugabe to Kim Il-Sung - but because he was a monster who failed to learn an obvious lesson from history: that the English-speaking peoples can be pushed very, very far, but no further.


Read the full article >>

Friday, 29 December 2006

Britain repays transatlantic Allies

The final act of the Second World War "Anglo-American Alliance" is about to take place, with the last installment of Britain's war debt being paid to Canada and the United States before the year is out. The original loans about to be retired seem small ($4.3 billion from the U.S., $1.2 billion from Canada), but by the standards of the day, the credit extended to Britain was in fact quite massive.

In the case of Canada, that amounted to 10% of our total GNP of $11 billion back in 1945. Think about that for a minute. We lent 10% of our country's total economic output to Great Britain following the war in return for an inflationary interest rate of 2%. In present value terms, given our $1.2 trillion economy, that would be the equivalent of lending a single country $120 billion! Put another way, that's roughly Ontario's current total provincial debt, or an amount that represents about $3,000 for every man, woman and child living in the country today. Who in their right mind would do such a thing?

Well, let's not pretend it was an outright gift, even though it was exceedingly generous. It was in our own economic interest to do so because we didn't want to see the UK go bankrupt, not after all the manufactured goods and basic staples of life the British were purchasing from us back then. It was a large reason why our economy was flourishing in the first part, along with meeting the huge demand for our own domestic war needs. Lord Keynes went so far as to say that the loan was a means used by America to subjugate Britain after the war. This is going too far, given the outright size of the financial assistance. Can you imagine the United States giving up hundreds of billions of its tax dollars to another country out of the goodness of their hearts. Charging 2% is hardly subjugation. Subjugation would be letting His Britannic Majesty go bankrupt, rendering him unable to feed His Majesty's subjects.


Read the full article >>

Tuesday, 19 December 2006

Tony Abbott's two cents' worth

Tony Abbott, the Australian federal Health Minister, last week gave a speech to a conference on The Journalist and Islam, organised by Macquarie University's Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at NSW Parliament House last week where he explained his opinion as to what made the Anglosphere (his words) great:

The Anglosphere has not maintained its economic, technological and military preponderance by pretending that there's nothing to learn from other cultures. English-speaking countries have not become beacons of hope and freedom by building walls against the world. We are always open to new ideas and better ways of doing things. We never assume that others have nothing to teach. To the extent that our political and ethical values are not potentially universal, we think that they're not values at all, just prejudices. This is the real explanation for the strength and resilience of our culture.

Where I part company with him is where he wonders "who faces the greater cultural shock: Australians who notice a few women wearing headscarves, or migrants from Muslim countries adjusting to almost complete sexual freedom, gender equality, cultural diversity and commercial laissez faire." No one forced them onto Australia's shores at gunpoint... Hell, here in China when I have to put up with the selfishness, poor manners, spitting, disregard for traffic lights and common rules, I'm constantly reminded that I'm a guest of the country.


Read the full article >>

Powerful Argument for the Anglosphere


Daniel Mandel in today's The CaliforniaRepublic asks "Which elements best ensure durable alliances among sovereign nations?" His answer: "Common interests, coupled with shared historic political institutions and a willingness to integrate military power - with a common language a major bonus." He then goes on to make a clear, point-by-point case:

Australia, Britain and the United States have much in common. Each has stood apart politically in its region. Each is based on traditions of political liberty anchored in representative, secular government and free trade. Each has fought steadfastly alongside the other two during the past century. And all three share strong naval traditions and modern naval forces. Common language and advanced levels of technology would make naval integration, if not easy, at least achievable. . .
An Anglosphere alliance would also have a striking geographic advantage in its global naval coverage of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea.


Read the full article >>