I believe in the Anglosphere | INFJ Forum

I believe in the Anglosphere

JJJA

Permanent Fixture
Jun 13, 2015
1,120
489
667
MBTI
Na
Enneagram
1
I was recently reading an article by somebody I often mention who is no longer with us; Christopher Hitchens. He mentioned a term that I think has long been forgotten and very seldom learned in our education and social circles. I shall cite a paragraph from the article in-which he discusses this phrase.

'We owe the term “Anglosphere” in large part to the historian and poet Robert Conquest, who this summer celebrated his 90th year of invincible common sense and courage in the fight against totalitarian thinking. In an appendix to his marvelous 2005 book The Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History, he offers a detailed proposal for a broad Anglosphere alliance among the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean....
The shape of the world since September 11 has, in fact, shown the outline of such an alliance in practice. Everybody knows of Tony Blair’s solidarity with the United States, but when the chips were down, Australian forces also went to Iraq. Attacked domestically for being “all the way with the USA,” Australian prime minister John Howard made the imperishable observation that in times of crisis, there wasn’t much point in being 75 percent a friend. Howard won reelection in 2004. Even in relatively neutralist Canada, an openly pro-U.S. government headed by Stephen Harper was elected in 2006, surprising pundits who predicted that a tide of anti-Americanism made such an outcome impossible.'

I shall just add to this phrase in terms of shared endeavors. The Anglosphere, which includes the countries Hitchens cited above, have through history since the early 20th Century has on many occasions come together to defeat the terrors of tyrannical and totalitarianism and fascism across the globe. From our shared mistakes during the First World War, the salient fight against international fascism during the Second World War, to the controversial conflicts we shared to take part in during the Cold War. These countries and their shared cultures, values, principles and language, in my opinion, will always stand together to make sure the world is safer against international terrorism in the 21st century and helps to prevent and defeat totalitarianism in all its forms. I completely endorse and support this alliance, and believe in the Anglosphere and fully encourage the use of this phrase.

I firmly believe in the success of multiculturalism across the globe, and I also firmly believe that the biggest threat to the success of it, is Islamic sectarianism. This style of conflict is not only relevant to the Middle-East, but in Europe under the current so-called 'Migrant Crisis'. I believe that the Anglosphere must continue to stand together in its shared alliance to make sure that an extremely chaotic and uncertain post-9/11 world is given some kind of security against the threat of Islamism. What needs to be done, and I apologize for sounding too political, is for the countries of the Anglosphere to identify and endorse the phrase and the ideas behind such an identity through our shared histories and conflicts which we fought and won together. Humanitarian efforts via the United Nations and NATO may help to stimulate our global outreach against international terrorism, but the Anglosphere in-particular, I think, is the only alliance in the world that can unanimously agree on which is the current and greatest threat to world peace and stability. Granted, some of the leading politicians in our countries are certainly having difficulty in publicly acknowledging the specific threats we face, but at least we agree on the broad narrative. Let us also not forget the fundamental facts which I think have also strengthened the alliance: shared democratic principles, courts of law and justice, institutions which grant human rights and the rights to vote, equal rights for both women and men, economic stability, habeas corpus and so on.

Yes, we also share our own controversies in the form of cyber-warfare and the issue of international law and counter-terrorist surveillance. However, we must not let these scandals ruin the integrity of this alliance. I have a lot more I could say on this topic, but I fear I will begin a political discussion, whereas my original intention is to simply emphasize a shared alliance between these great countries and encourage open discussion on these countries' cultures and histories. I believe in the Anglosphere and fully support it in all its principles and challenges.

anglosphere_flag_by_dominichemsworth-d637c8x.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PintoBean
Fascinating...... Want to dumb it down for me.
 
Sounds like more nationalistic drummed up Patriotism against Islamic countries. (with overtones of religious vilification)
Hitchen’s talks about them being a threat, but very often mentions that this is his “opinion” and seems to offer little more in the posting you cited.
I’m sure he has written extensively (maybe?) on the subject…it just seems very Xenophobic to me.
 
Sounds like more nationalistic drummed up Patriotism against Islamic countries. (with overtones of religious vilification)
Hitchen’s talks about them being a threat, but very often mentions that this is his “opinion” and seems to offer little more in the posting you cited.
I’m sure he has written extensively (maybe?) on the subject…it just seems very Xenophobic to me.

Christopher Hitchens was a master of rhetoric. He was extremely intelligent and knew what he was talking about. He was also closed minded, jingoistic and arrogant.

I don't even know where to start with the massive praise of the Anglosphere. Why am I even entering this debate just now? I'm sure that as this topic evolves, I would love to DeLorean myself and stop myself from posting this.

I agree that the liberal-democracy model of free speech and meritocracy methods are great in comparison to all other systems (that I know of). Ideologically it represents plurality and acceptance.

On a practical level, it has failed again and again. From its humble beginnings to today. Here are a few examples, there's simply too many to name:

- Henry the 8th claiming divine powers to Kings and regents. Catholics and Protestants dueling for power, mass exterminations on both sides and so on.

- The brutal eradication of Ireland and the Gaelic language. The occupation of Scotland. The horrible plantations on Ireland. All in the name of the Anglosphere and the divinity of England. It was seen as a way to civilize the stupid Irish.

- Financing the American colonies by forcing African slaves to slave themselves to death to produce sugar.

- Mass extermination of Native Americans, along with the native people of Hawaii, Samoa and other small islands off the coast of America.

- Slavery in Africa. Abducting more than a third of Angola, resulting in a nose-dive in average life-span and rampant poverty at home. Murdering millions of Africans. Creating tensions amongst people that still exist today.

- Stealing from colonies. Gold, silver, precious minerals. This was done in North America, the Middle East, the colonies, and India especially.

- The subjugation of India. Eradicating "indecent" art which showed genitalia, in accordance with the strict Victorian rules at the time. Violent suppression of the Indian public. Re-introducing the caste system to pit people against each other. The caste system is still a major source of tension today, decades after it was officially abolished.

- The Opium Wars. China wanted to ban opium because a large chunk of the public was addicted to it. That proved problematic, as the British were the ones selling it to India. They went to war with China, and won. They forced China to keep selling opium to its public, against the will of the people.

- The Middle East. Oh boy. Israel, Palestine, Persia(Iran). So much to cover. Corruption, assassinations, partisions, stealing, broken promises, funding to illegal terrorist organizations, wars for minerals and oil -- google it!

- Inequality. America and Britain have both created and now exist in some of the most unequal states of the world. Races pit against each other, education only for the wealthy, the lowest minimum wages, high unemployment numbers - especially for young people, and a huge disconnect between poor and wealthy.

- South Africa. The Dutch and British introduced apartheid in the 18th century, and the British used it to control the country until they left it. They then keep supporting it through the 1980s, with Thatcher not even denouncing the system while she was in power. The ANC (Mandela's party) was seen as a terrorist group.

- Sting and Phil Collins. Seriously. Thanks, guys.

How much more do you need? I could literally write about the tragedies caused by the Anglosphere for years -- and I will! My University English studies teaches it for almost two out of the three bachelor years. Because it's just that much a part of the Anglospherean culture.

... This is coming from someone who loves the British and Americans. I think that it's a fascinating culture and language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJ_ and Skarekrow
The Anglosphere is also as bad, if not worse because of the insidious nature of it, for psychological totalitarianism. These countries are good at attacking extraverted evil but absolutely useless at recognising the emotional and psychic forces behind it or recognising these needs in their own people. Physical comfort is a poor substitute for psychic and spiritual health.
 
[video=youtube;TQU9J2ssOF8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQU9J2ssOF8[/video]

How scary is it that this monologue motivated the US government to have Charlie Chaplin thrown out?
 
Where's Ireland's flag? Also they have UK and Britain duplicated in that mesh of flags... Oh dear, you've started with the left foot mate!
 
Where's Ireland's flag? Also they have UK and Britain duplicated in that mesh of flags... Oh dear, you've started with the left foot mate!

I just found it from google images by typing 'Anglosphere flag'. Ireland is with us in-spirit.
 
I just found it from google images by typing 'Anglosphere flag'. Ireland is with us in-spirit.

It was just a detail that made me chuckle anyway, nothing that serious, maybe the flag's colours doesn't combine with the rest.
 
I just found it from google images by typing 'Anglosphere flag'. Ireland is with us in-spirit.

They fought a war against Britain in 1922 to leave the Anglosphere spirit.
Can you blame them?
 
You would never get support for this in Canada.

First, one of the main characteristic that we proudly self-identify as is that we are not American. This is very very important to us. Stephen Harper isn't in power because of his pro-american stance. Also, the way our political system works most Canadians voted against him but he still ended up in power.

Secondly, our political history makes it very dangerous and destabilizing to associate ourselves too closely with Britain. Separatist sentiments in Québec would be stirred up again and we would risk having our country torn apart.

In any case 'the Anglosphere' has caused more harm than good in it's history. What you propose is dangerous and would just lead to more conflict and terrorism.
 
Sounds like more nationalistic drummed up Patriotism against Islamic countries. (with overtones of religious vilification)
Hitchen’s talks about them being a threat, but very often mentions that this is his “opinion” and seems to offer little more in the posting you cited.
I’m sure he has written extensively (maybe?) on the subject…it just seems very Xenophobic to me.

So let me get this straight. You think that supporting an alliance between several countries that share similar cultures and values means I fear every other country and its inhabitants? That's what I must assume you mean from the definition of a Xenophobe. It just seems like pointless name-calling without any argument or evidence to back up such words. I am not a Nationalist and I think every Nationalist movement is fueled by ignorance. It is indeed the "opinion" of myself and Mr. Hitchens to conclude that Islamic fundamentalism is a big threat. But at the very least bring SOMETHING to backup your claim that I am a Nationalist and a Xenophobe.
 
Christopher Hitchens was a master of rhetoric. He was extremely intelligent and knew what he was talking about. He was also closed minded, jingoistic and arrogant.

Please provide some evidence to backup your accusation that Hitchens was 'closed minded, jinoistic and arrogant'. All I take from this statement is that you disagree with his views (for whatever reason, you haven't specified).

All you did afterward was list a bunch of atrocities and conflicts which you think proves how bad the Anglosphere is. I don't actually know what point you are attempting to make by doing this, but most, if not all of the events you lists relate to British imperialism before the 20th Century and the African Slave trade. The countries of the Anglosphere did not create slavery, but they were the first to abolish it. Something many people fail to mention in their criticisms of the West. Why is everyone so quick to demonize West values with imperialism? The territories of Africa prior to colonization were not exactly a tolerant peoples, and had absolutely no desire to improve the economic and social conditions of their countries. The British were not the first people to colonize lands. The Mongol Empire and Rome before it, I honestly think, is largely forgotten and has been replaced by British imperialism because a lot of people deem it 'more relevant' to criticism of the West, which I think is completely false. The difference is that Western imperialism and superiority occurred not because of coercion, dominance or slavery, but because of laws and institutions created by reason and Enlightened thinking which developed from the 16th-17th Centuries. The 19th Century British empire pioneered the abolition of slavery, international free-trade, free labour and modern communications. I highly recommend you read Niall Ferguson's 'Empire' which provides an extraordinarily broad and deep analysis of British colonialism prior to the 20th Century.

Aside from colonialism, I fail to see your point in even trying to list these events. Nowhere in my OP did I mention that the Anglosphere was superior to any other country or nation and nowhere did I attempt to assert the superiority of Anglsphere values and principles. What I did do, however, was provide the core facts which detail the alliance which has existed since the early 20th Century in protecting each other's nations against totalitarianism. What on earth does your rant about slavery have anything to do with my post? Or are you just trying another smear-attempt at America and Britain? This narrative does appear to be extremely prevalent on this forum's political circle.
 
Last edited:
You would never get support for this in Canada.

First, one of the main characteristic that we proudly self-identify as is that we are not American. This is very very important to us. Stephen Harper isn't in power because of his pro-american stance. Also, the way our political system works most Canadians voted against him but he still ended up in power.

Secondly, our political history makes it very dangerous and destabilizing to associate ourselves too closely with Britain. Separatist sentiments in Québec would be stirred up again and we would risk having our country torn apart.

In any case 'the Anglosphere' has caused more harm than good in it's history. What you propose is dangerous and would just lead to more conflict and terrorism.

I do not wish to disappoint your idea of a Canada without the allies I mentioned, but it is already a fact that this alliance exists. The details of the alliance in-which I described and supported contains no prescribed geographical boundaries, and under the UKUSA Agreement and several other intelligence and military treaties and alliances, the Anglosphere is in-fact an unofficial alliance between the countries listed in the OP.

What you THINK I proposed will lead to more conflict and terrorism, do not state it as dangerous without providing me with a reason. What is your main reason? I am quite curious to know why you think the Anglosphere is dangerous and causes terrorism.

The Anglosphere has caused harm, but I do think you have already brought your own unmovable agenda to the table by saying it has caused more harm than good. I am not sure if you wish to discuss this, but you really need to back up some of the accusations that you make when 'criticizing' the Anglosphere.
 
Please provide some evidence to backup your accusation that Hitchens was 'closed minded, jinoistic and arrogant'. All I take from this statement is that you disagree with his views (for whatever reason, you haven't specified).

I will agree that those words were deeply subjective, but not untrue.

Closed minded. Hitchens was excessively for anything that he believed in, and extremely, discriminatorily, against what he didn't believe in. I'm sure that you're familiar with this quote of his:

“Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.”

He generalizes all with beliefs and calls the entire group people that have given up with their minds. To say that's a gross exaggeration would be stating it mildly. What about the Quakers? What about Religious Scientists? These groups were the leading abolitionists, and risked life and well-being to secure the freedoms that we all enjoy today. What about the people that fight wars and rely heavily on priests to talk to about their problems? It's not just a black-and-white way of discriminating all with religion, it's extremely closed minded. That's one example, mind you.

Jingoistic. I was surprised that you challenged this one. He has said these following things about the war on terror:

“I don't think the war in Afghanistan was ruthlessly enough waged.”
“Cluster bombs are perhaps not good in themselves, but when they are dropped on identifiable concentrations of Taliban troops, they do have a heartening effect.”
“Will an Iraq war make our Al Qaeda problem worse? Not likely.”
“The death toll is not nearly high enough... too many [jihadists] have escaped.”

I mean ...

Arrogant. My most subjective of claims. The way he spoke "at" those with differing views was appalling. He rarely had respect for differing opinions, but dismissed them as being "without evidence" and "illogical". That is arrogance.

All you did afterward was list a bunch of atrocities and conflicts which you think proves how bad the Anglosphere is. I don't actually know what point you are attempting to make by doing this, but most, if not all of the events you lists relate to British imperialism before the 20th Century and the African Slave trade. The countries of the Anglosphere did not create slavery, but they were the first to abolish it. Something many people fail to mention in their criticisms of the West. Why is everyone so quick to demonize West values with imperialism? The territories of Africa prior to colonization were not exactly a tolerant peoples, and had absolutely no desire to improve the economic and social conditions of their countries. The 19th Century British empire pioneered the abolition of slavery, international free-trade, free labour and modern communications. I highly recommend you read Niall Ferguson's 'Empire' which provides an extraordinarily broad and deep analysis of British colonialism prior to the 20th Century.

Let me clarify, I did not at any point write that the Anglosphere was bad. I wrote that the ideals of freedom that eventually came out of Europe are impressive and important. What you were referring to was when I wrote that the Anglosphere has failed in its practical execution.

History doesn't ever end. The deeds of today echo through what comes next. Do you honestly think that Africa today isn't marred by the slave trade of the 17th-19th century? The British Empire did not create slavery, but they facilitated the heck out of it. They were responsible for the slave trading routes from Central-West Africa, and imported more than 500.000 slaves in an obscenely short amount of time. The British did not abolish slavery for the kindness of their hearts, they did so because of an incredible outrage from the British public and the growing abolitionist movement. The former slave Olauda Equiano became a national hero after escaping slavery from America and the British. He was raised by Quakers who taught him English like white children, and he was told to stop speaking so much English after being abducted. His book changed everything, but we don't even commemorate him, because it was incredibly annoying to the Brits that they had to stop selling slaves. If they had not been stopped from facilitating slavery, they would have happily continued doing so.

Thank you for the referral. I would encourage you to read contemporary texts about the treatment and lives of Creole slaves and the slave trade. Likewise, I would recommend reading the writings of Jonathan Swift and others about the Irish question in the 18th and 19th century.

Aside from colonialism, I fail to see your point in even trying to list these events. Nowhere in my OP did I mention that the Anglosphere was superior to any other country or nation and nowhere did I attempt to assert the superiority of Anglsphere values and principles. What I did do, however, was provide the core facts which detail the alliance which has existed since the early 20th Century in protecting each other's nations against totalitarianism. What on earth does your rant about slavery have anything to do with my post? Or are you just trying another smear-attempt at America and Britain? This narrative does appear to be extremely prevalent on this forum's political circle.

Turning a blind eye to history is maybe the most dangerous thing you can do. The alliance that you are referring to did not drop down from Heaven to save the world. Most of the problems that need fixing around the globe are somehow related to colonialism and involvement by the Anglosphere. The animosity that the Anglosphere has experienced, and will continue to experience, doesn't come from an anger of our way of life, but of what you did to them not 70 years ago. People remember, and history matters. That was my point.

I don't like how you are accusing me of "trying another smear-attempt at America and Britain". You do not own the definition of America and Britain. I love both countries. I have spent a number of years in both of them. The fact that you can't distinguish what I'm writing from a smear campaign is troubling. A multitude of great things have happened in the Anglosphere, and I really can't thank you guys enough for the refrigerator, but I'm just trying to point out that the union has been built on a very troubled ground, and has not been the great example to the world that it thinks it has been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
So let me get this straight. You think that supporting an alliance between several countries that share similar cultures and values means I fear every other country and its inhabitants? That's what I must assume you mean from the definition of a Xenophobe. It just seems like pointless name-calling without any argument or evidence to back up such words. I am not a Nationalist and I think every Nationalist movement is fueled by ignorance. It is indeed the "opinion" of myself and Mr. Hitchens to conclude that Islamic fundamentalism is a big threat. But at the very least bring SOMETHING to backup your claim that I am a Nationalist and a Xenophobe.

Firstly Sir. my very own dear Mom is from Canada.
Secondly, I did not call you a Nationaist or a Xenophobe, just that what you wrote (actually what Hitchen’s wrote and you reposted) has Nationalistic and Xenophobic overtones ((and I’m not the only one here who has said so)) (that’s my opinion just like Hitchen’s)
Thirdly, it is drumming the drum of nationalism by basically saying - these three countries are going to team up against the rest…no?
Fourth, Hitchen’s doesn’t offer any proof of anything in the post you posted - he cites no numbers, details, links, etc.
It reads like an opinion piece and not the piece of history you seem to read it as…that’s all.
I’m not attacking you JJJA.