"I just picked up on the fact that Foxy's article was written by Gareth Evans"

Yeah but I can why Foxy likes the article. After all it tells her what she wants to hear and that's always Foxy main criteria. It also sets up a strawman argument - another Foxy favourite.

Evans describes the Anglosphere in a way that suits his purposes but isn't anything like what the proponents of it describe. Evans imagines it to be some united force and then proceeds to explain why it can't be that. But that's not what the proponents of it suggest.

The first to describe the anglosphere was Robert Conquest in his book "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" ( This is a book Foxy once claimed to had read and then proceeded to show she hadn't the slightest understanding of it).

Conquest, and others, see the Anglosphere to be an informal movement that operated as an example to the world as to how good governance and prosperity could be achieved. They never saw it as a formal alliance.

As always with these discussions, those who oppose open slather immigration finally get called racist or the more intellectually pious 'xenophobic' (Please explain!).

As I've explained before, I reject the accusation but happily accept a description as a culturalist. That is I don't agree with the notion that we reject people based on their race but fully support the notion that we select our immigrants based on their culture.

As I said earlier, there is a vast difference between an immigrant from Bristol and one from Islamabad. The difference isn't race but their culture. We need to import people, if we want to import people, who are conducive to our culture. So Christian Croats - yes; Muslim Croats - No. Same race different culture. I was completely in favour of bringing in Yazidi refugees but utterly opposed to bringing in Syrian refugees.

Numbers also matter. Europe is now living proof of what happens when you let too many (way too many) people in from an alien culture. I get that some want to avert their eyes from what's happening in Rotherham or Berlin or Vienna. But the only difference between us and them is the number of people who have no intention of integrating that were permitted in. We stopped the boats and they didn't.

We are constantly sloganised with the chant that Diversity is Strength. But there isn't the slightest evidence for that. Britain's diversity is tearing it apart. Germany too. Poland, who rejected all alien immigrants now looks on them with disdain as they reap the rewards of their far-sightedness.

Although both major parties have ignored the wishes of the electorate in regards to the numbers of immigrants, they have heeded the warnings of Europe in regards to who comes in. Let's hope that remains the case.

mikk wrote: "I know for a fact that local white scumbag rape gangs are far more numerous than any immigrant ones."

Well we were talking about the gangs in Britain but that was clearly too complex. Still if you have 'facts' (smirk) about white rape gangs in your locale you should pass it on to your local constabulary. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to be presented with all those facts.

I am tired of explaining things. I'm losing the energy
to keep on explaining.

But I'll give it one more try.

Talking about the "Anglosphere?"

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is the commentary
and analysis site of an independent non-partisan think tank
based in Canberra. I chose an article in The Strategist
because ASPI is regarded as one of the most authoritative
and widely quoted contributors to public discussions and
strategic policy issues in Australia and a recognised and
authoritative Australian voice in international
discussions of strategic issues, especially in the Indo-
Pacific.

The author, Gareth Evans was Australia's Foreign Minister
1988-1996 and then was the Chancellor of the Australian National
University 2010-2020. He's an Honorary Fellow of Magdalen
College in Oxford amongst other things.

I thought that an article from an experienced former Australian
Foreign Minister and politician would be of value (have merit)
on the subject of the "Anglosphere".

Apparently not. Some prefer the anonymous posters on this forum.
The self-proclaimed experts on "Woke Marxism"as well as
American real estate salesmen, fish and chip shop ladies,
and former police men wanting to be PMs.

I guess each to their preferences.

It's only fair to point out that many Australians however are
more concerned with other relationships than with that of the
UK. I guess it may be because it is highly complex to
organise some kind of network within five states in different
parts of the world.

You don't get it Foxy. I suspect you'll never get it.

Talking about the Anglosphere isn't the same as talking about our relationship with the UK. Indeed given the depths to which England is currently descending, the last thing Australia currently needs is to strengthen or rely on its relationship to Albion.

But the Anglosphere is more than England. Its more than any location. Its a concept, a way of thinking, a way of life, a way of organising society. Its about the common law, rule of law, democracy, free market capitalism, freedom of religion. Its about Australia being part of a centuries old societal project that so successful created the modern world and, given the chance, will continue to guide the modern world.

If you ever get around to reading Conquest's 'Reflections' it'll make more sense to you.

mhaze- I suppose that Foxy will read it one day when she isn't so tired and low in energy. At least she admits that she isn't at her best at the moment. I've got the book by Conquest in my reading list now. But it will probably take a while to get to it. I'm still trying to get through Carl Schmidt's book that ttbn mentioned.

I get the impression that Conquest's book covers much more than just multiculturalism. Also I agree with what he says about the EU.

Thanks mhaze for putting us onto the book.