Much is said these days about the “clash of civilizations”. Once, we had dynastic feuds and wars between kings, and then the dreadful wars of peoples in the last century, but now, we are told, it is a fight between civilizations. As with most grand generalizations, there is an element of truth to this, and an element of falseness. But at any rate it shifts our focus from nations to “civilizations” and these civilizations can sometime be a tricky thing to pin down. For fifty years after the Second World War, the great divide of “us” and “them” was the “Free World” of the liberal democracies against the “Evil Empire” of marxian communism. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, this dichotomy immediately collapsed, which has turned minds to factors a touch more cultural.

And so, we are now told of the existence of something called the “Anglosphere”, which is merely a lingo-istic word for what used to be described as the English-speaking countries. Britain, America, and what used to be described as the “white dominions” (for the sake of proprietry, let us here call them the “great dominions”) share to a great extent a common faith, a common history, a common ancestry, a common language, a common form of government, and perhaps even a common way of thinking. All this is certainly true, albeit to greatly varying degrees (I’ve had cab drivers in Fife who speak a tongue which one would be pressed to describe as English, while I have neighbors in Westchester who I doubt have a single ancestor who was a subject of the Crown).

Yes, there is much that unites the English-speaking peoples and these are things which ought to be preserved, maintained, and celebrated unto the ages. But there are some devotées of the English-speaking world who are not satisfied with having and enjoying this unity. Rather, they urge we go that extra step further into the beyond (which, as we traditionalists know, is usually the one step off the precipice) and demand that the unity of the English-speaking peoples take a political form. There ought to be an Anglosphere Union just as there is a European Union, and there ought to be an Anglosphere Parliament and why not an Anglosphere government while were at it? We’re all really just one people anyhow, aren’t we? Wouldn’t this be a great development in the onward progress of English-speaking supremacy?

In a word: no. The idea of English-speaking political unity is one which deserves both our scorn and our ridicule. The particular genius to that which unites Britain, America, and the great dominions is the very fact that it is apolitical and nongovernmental. Taking these loose but genuine and organic ties of blood and culture and forging it into a political union can only do damage to the constituent peoples of the “Anglosphere”. Experience has shown that the existence of high structures quite often leads to the centralization of power. If the English-speaking world needs anything in the realm of government and politics, it is not yet another level of goverment to which to “pass the buck” but rather the decentralization of power away from London, Ottawa, Washington, Canberra, and Wellington. An Anglosphere Union would almost certainly constitute a threat to our liberties and present a distinct challenge to the principle of solidarity. Do the supports of this hare-brained scheme actually think that should an Anglosphere Union be created, it will be run by Somerset yeomen, Australian pig farmers, ernest Kansans, and aristocratic Highlanders? Of course not. It would be run by the same horrific, banal cast(e) of characters who run Congress and Parliament. Do we really want to give enemies of Anglo traditionalism like George Bush and Tony Blair even larger domains to lord over? They already act like they rule the world; let us not dignify their bloated egos.

Now, there are some areas which greater cooperation between our peoples would be quite desirable. Given the amount of trade and interchange between our countries, a customs union might be a good idea. (I hate putting those blasted custom forms on packages to England!). The fact that the U.K., America, and Australia are in three different DVD regions is an affront to common sense and decency (but then I suppose the very idea of DVD regions is itself an affront). Given that we share many of the same customs, tradition, and history, allowing a prefential option for visas and work permits would be a good idea. But these are things which can be done without Anglosphere Union and indeed which, if enacted, we must be on guard to make sure they do not constitute embryonic centralization.

Democracies and republics (be they monarchic, presidential, or otherwise) can function marvelously so long as they are properly proportioned. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Prince Edward Island are of a scale which would prove quite conducive to democracy. I’ve sometimed fancied Newfoundland would make a fine principality. But when applied to a large area with a large population (especially one with debased elites such as our own), it becomes inimical to the preservation of ancient rights and privileges and a threat to traditional culture. To enact democracy on a global scale, or on any large scale, will inevitably result in some shape or form of dictatorship. (Witness, for example, the almost supreme power of the metropolitan elites over the countryside in the ‘democratic’ Britain of today).

So let us put aside ridiculous notions of Anglosphere Union. They not only constitute a marked departure from the tradition of our forefathers, but they present a direct challenge to the very best aspects of the English-speaking peoples which we seek to preserve. Let the ties that join us be ones of freedom, and not of bondage.