D-Day: The Anglosphere Victory

Amphibious assaults are one of the most difficult military operations to perform, even for one united army. But on D-day, there were two unique and very different armies, the US and the British/Canadians.

While the Brits and Canadians had the same equipment, training, and structure, the US Army was very different. American divisions were larger and organized differently. The individual soldiers were trained differently and the Army as a whole had a doctrine that reflected its unique experiences. Although some equipment was shared, such as the M4 Sherman tank, most of the American equipment was different from their British and Canadian counterparts.  Attempting a complex military operation such as 'Overlord' with such divergent forces greatly reduced its chances for success. But succeed it did.

The fact that the Anglo-American forces could overcome these differences and form a cohesive fighting force is a reflection of how much similarity there is between the nations of the Anglosphere. During the war the Germans and Italians could not do it and the allies never attempted to do it with the Russians.  It is very difficult to find anything similar to it in history.  Whenever battles were fought with multiple allies, they tended to fight as separate forces.  There was never a joint command and if there was cooperation it was because one force was subordinate to the other.  This was not the case on D-Day.  Both the British and Americans shared the same level of authority and one was not subordinate to the other.  Only the Anglo-American Combined Staff could create such effective unity from such a divergent force. 

So for me, D-day is not only a symbol of the Anglosphere's fight against tyranny, but also what can be achieved when English-speaking nations put aside their differences and unite for the betterment of mankind. Then miracles, like D-Day, can happen.

Queen's Jubilee: Why Americans should care

Like most Americans, my view of monarchy is that it is a political system that instills fancy despots who are above the law and who arbitrarily rule over their subjects.  This is compounded by the tradition of producing spoiled despots (many of them sick- physically and mentally- from centuries of inbreeding) to replace themselves.   The product of this hereditary and absolute rule is a system that allowed generations of monarchs to lord over everything within their realms, trample the rights of individuals, and treat people in general as nothing more than beast of burden. 

But as I started doing research for my book, Liberty Inherited, I soon discovered the English (British after the Acts of Union) monarchy was different, special, and exceptional among the monarchies of the world. 

As Sir William Young explained it:

The word king in Great Britain means not the same thing as king elsewhere; as formerly in France, or as actually in Prussia, Hungary, or Spain. It means a person invested with the executive power, as to the people individually to administer the laws, but under the control of the laws; and as to the people as a nation, to administer the government, but under the control of the nation. As to the persons and property of individuals, the king has no power or authority, but what the people by their representatives have veiled in him by laws made for the public peace and advantage of all.

In other words, unlike the rest of the world, the British subjects did not serve the King, he served them. 

What is amazing is that Young scribed those words over 200 year ago (1793) while the French Revolution was just starting and the “American Experiment” was in its infancy.  One ended with the establishment of a tyrant named Napoleon Bonaparte while the other became a symbol of liberty and freedom.  The reason for this differential of outcome is that although both believed in liberty and justice, only one, the United States, was based on the “rights of Englishmen.”   It is these rights which evolved under the English system of limited monarchy that provided the principles that would make the United States into the great nation it has become.

This would not have happened if the original colonies had the misfortune of being colonized by one of the continental powers.  As I explain in Liberty Inherited:

Due to the absolutist beliefs of the French and Spanish such a [limited government] system of ruling colonies could not even be imagined. People living in the French and Spanish empires were never given autonomy over the affairs of their colony. Governors and Captaincies were usually minor nobles sent from the mother country. They ruled with the authority of the king, which gave them dictatorial powers over their subjects.

The result would be that the United States would not have had the political principles that have been the foundation of its success.  Instead, it and the other English-speaking nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) would be nothing more than the political basket cases that many of the former French and Spanish colonies are.  

Additionally, we must wonder if the American Revolution would have been possible if the colonies were those of Spain or France.  It must be recognized that in an era when rebellion was met with ruthless and often bloody suppression the British government showed remarkable restraint.  A restraint the Empire did not always show to those it viewed as non-English.  If not for their rights as Englishmen, the instigators of the revolution would have been rounded up long before shots were fired at Concord and Lexington.  In a French or Spanish colony, at the first utterance of a rebellious word, they would have been summarily arrested and shot, their property confiscated, their families left destitute.

Even the prosecution of the war by the British army, while at times marked by abuses, was very civil for the period.  The local populace was mostly left unmolested and even treated cordially.  Lord Cornwallis, the commander of the British army, had numerous opportunities to pursue the defeated Continental Army but failed to do so.  Thus allowing Washington to slip away and fight another day.  Most American history books explain his lack of aggressiveness as plain ineptitude but Cornwallis went on to go down in history as a great British general.  He had notable successes in India and Ireland, both of which showcased his military and political abilities. 

So why was he unable to do the same in Britain’s American colonies? Maybe the answer lies in that the rebellious colonists were seen and treated more as misguided Englishmen than warring enemies.  As such, they were entitled to receive the rights and benefits of being Englishmen.  If so, that would be the greatest irony of the American Revolution, that while fighting for their “rights as Englishmen” they were being shielded by those rights.

It is only natural that in the intervening years the United States and the United Kingdom would come together to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.  It was with aid from the United States that Britain was able to resist Nazi tyranny and it was predominately Anglo-American forces that ultimately put an end to Hitler’s reign of death and oppression.  This blow for liberty and freedom was followed up with both nations containing and then defeating the equally bloody and oppressive ideology of communism. 

Britain’s support to America after the attacks on 9/11 demonstrates that this special relationship is alive and well in the 21^st century.   As Dennis Murphy (former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair) explained it: 

He [PM Blair] would speak for all of us who value democracy and freedom when he committed Britain to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA in their darkest hour of the early years of the 21st Century, as they had done for us, twice, during ours in the 20th Century. They'd always been there for Europe when we needed them.  They needed us now.

A recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 82% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Queen.  I believe this positive view to be well deserved.  Not because of who she is or her individual appeal, but because of principles she and the British monarchy symbolizes.  For, without these principles, the United States would not be the nation it is today.

This is why the Queen’s Jubilee should matter to Americans.  It is a time when we need to reflect on the good fortune of the thirteen original colonies being English/British, that the great men who founded this nation were “freeborn Englishmen” and that we inherited the English principles for freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

Therefore, I say, “God Save the Queen and the great traditions she stands for.”

Englishman's Right to Bear Arms and the 2nd Amendment

In my last blog post, No 1776 without 1688, I discussed how many of the rights we take as being uniquely American were actually the rights that many Englishmen enjoyed in the 17th century.  I do this for more than just amusement purposes. By understanding the proper historical perspective of the founding of this nation, we get clarity into what motivated the Founding Fathers.  We get an insight into why they took the actions they did.  Lastly, we get an intimate understanding of the principles conveyed in the founding documents of this nation.

This is especially true for the Bill of Rights and its most controversial amendments, the right to bear arms. There are two current interpretations of this amendment.  One interpretation believes that the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms to be limited to members of "a well regulated militia." The other interpretation believes that the founding fathers meant for it to be a check and balance on the authority of government. Therefore, it is an individual right outside of the governmental system or establishment.

A cursory reading of the amendment lends validity to both of these interpretations.  But when we trace the right to bear arms back to its historical origins we find that only one interpretation is substantiated.

As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, the right to bear arms first appeared in writing in the Declaration of Rights of 1689. Like the Bill of Rights, the Declarations of Rights was the product of a revolution and the events leading up to it. 

By the time of James II ordination in 1685, the limits on an English monarch's power had long been established. But James did not like this and wanted to restructure the English government on the French and Spanish models. In both of these countries, the king had absolute power over the nation and his subjects. James knew this would require him to impose his will on the liberty loving and fiercely independent English people.

One of the obstacles to James' goals was that the English people were just as well armed as any loyal force he could assemble.  He could not entirely eliminate the ownership of weapons since many at that time relied on them for their livelihood.  Therefore, he used his royal prerogative to restrict the weapons that an Englishman could own to those that could only be used for hunting and sporting purposes. This meant that the average person would only be allowed to own small caliber muskets for small game and shotguns for bird hunting. This left the populace at a great disadvantage to royal forces and at the mercy of the King.

After waking up to the threat that James II posed to their liberty the English people overthrew him in what was to be known as The Glorious Revolution. Like the Americans 100 years later, they realized that they would need a document that would assert “their ancient rights and liberties.” That document was the Declaration of Rights and in its list of rights number seven states:

7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

Please note that the intended purpose of arms was for ‘defense.’  Considering the motivating factors behind the document it is clear that the drafters of the Declaration of Rights saw an armed populace as a defense against government, in this case a monarchy, abuses of power. 

It is not inconceivable that the drafters of the Bill of Rights did not intend the 2nd amendment to, likewise, be a check on the power and authority of government. To do otherwise, is to believe that such learned men such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were utterly unaware of the document that guaranteed their rights as Englishmen.

No 1776 without 1688

There is no question that 1776 was an important year.  For nearly 18 months, Englishmen on both side of the Atlantic had been fighting and killing each other.  Only after it became clear that their “rights as Englishmen” were not to be respected by London’s ruling class did the men who would become the Founding Fathers of this nation decide that independence was the only option.  

That year, a rebellion became a revolution and it would end with the establishment of a new kind of government.  One based on the untried premise that man was capable of governing himself.   No longer was a monarch or elites needed to tell the common man what to do—how to live.  This became known as the American Revolution, but in reality it was a revolution for all of humanity and forever changed the world.

Most Americans are familiar with the significance of 1776, but very few know about the year that made the American Revolution possible, 1688.  Almost 100 years before the American Revolution, back in old England, another revolution took place. This was called the Glorious Revolution and it is a revolution that all Americans should remember.  For without the events of 1688—without the Glorious Revolution— there would be no American Revolution, no Constitution of the United States, no Bill of Rights, no Declaration of Independence. 

We clearly see this in the early writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers, especially those prior to the Declaration of Independence. The one common justification for their rebellion was that they were fighting for their rights as “freeborn Englishmen.”  For example, in response to the Stamp Act the colonists drew up the Declaration of Rights of 1765.  Section 2d states:

2d That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 

In other words, they were reaffirming their “rights as freeborn Englishmen” and one would be hard-pressed to find a member of the 2^nd Continental Congress who did not utter the phrase at least once in a speech or debate.  

We need to remember that in most of the world at the time servitude and serfdom was the norm, not liberty and freedom.  So why did these august men believe they had rights?   The answer is the Glorious Revolution.  

  

Just like the American Revolution of 1776 produced such extraordinary documents as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in an equally impressive document known as the “Declaration of Rights.”  This document, signed by William and Mary, King and Queen of England, numerated several principles and rights that would be reaffirmed in the founding documents of United States.  These include:

• The right to bear arms
• The right to trial by jury of their peers
• Innocent until proven guilt
• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment
• Right to bail
• Right to petition government

And, of course, the big one:

• No taxation without representation

As I explain in my bestselling book, Liberty Inherited, “This comparison of the documents from 1689 and those from 1776 reveals that there is a connection between the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. It supports the argument that the American Revolution was fought for English values based on classical liberal principles.”

In other words, there would not have been a 1776 without a 1688.

Looking Left and Right

Today, Congress had the chance to preserve the constitution, but failed to do so.  The Smith-Amash Amendment to H.R. 4310 would have prohibited the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of planning terrorism on U.S. soil.  As a result of its defeat, the government will have the power to detain American citizens for as long as they want without ever granting them their constitutional right to a trial.  Again, this is only on suspicion, which can be determined just on hearsay.  If you are an America, your right to being "secure in your person" has just been greatly reduced.

What is even more disturbing is that the defeat of this amendment was only possible with support from both parties, right and left.  It makes one ask, "Is either party, on the right or left, interested in preserving the constitution?"  The answer is clearly NO.

But this does not surprise me. After a lifetime of studying history, especially in the modern era (16^th century-present), I have come to understand that there are two threats to liberty, freedom and democracy.  These two threats are:

Busybodies on the Right 

Collectivists on the Left

By Busybodies, I mean the people—often religious, often well-intentioned—that want to mold society into their vision of it.  They want the government to limit or prohibit activities they find objectionable, such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, obesity, etc.  Their objection to any given activity is usually moral based, but can also be the result of outright animosity.  For example, many who want to restrict or limit alcohol consumption are those who have dealt with (or seen loved ones deal with) the terrible affects of alcoholism.  They often become so passionate in combating what they see as the cause of pain and suffering that they are willing to remove other people’s right to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

For the collectivist on the left, it is “social injustice” that motivates their destruction of freedom.  They see inequality, especially material inequality, as the great evil.  That one person should have so much while many have so little is very disturbing to them.  Additionally, they see everyone as part of a group and inequality between groups is equally as, if not more, disturbing than the disparity between individuals.  These are injustices that must be rectified.  They demand that the government create regulations and policies that will eliminate the injustices.  This usually takes to form of redistributing of wealth, affirmative action programs, “social justice” initiatives, regulations, and restrictions on freedoms.

Whether a person is a Busybody on the Right or a Collectivist on the left is not important.  What is important is to recognize that both are a threat to freedom, liberty, and democracy.  They are both progressive state-based ideologies that want to use the coercive power of government to enforce their will on the American people.  

It is also important to recognize that neither view is representative of the values that this nation has been built on; limited government, individual freedom, private property, and free market economics.  (For details of the 1600 year evolution of these values see my bestselling book: Liberty Inherited )

I argue that to refer to these groups as the Right and Left end of the American political spectrum is either a product of intellectual dishonesty or lack of understanding of this nation’s political history.  They are, in reality, the two faces of Progressive-ism, which is based on the idea that man can achieve a utopian world.  One leads to fascism and the other communism.  They both use the same means, governmental coerciveness.  What they differ on is their vision of the utopian world they so desperately desire to impose on us.

It is only natural to look at the threat that those who we oppose pose to our freedoms, liberty, and rights.  But this “we good, you bad” approach leaves us blind to the danger from our ‘own side.’

[A historical example of this is Hitler’s SA.  The SA (Sturm Abteilung) was the infamous “brown shirts” of the Nazi party.  Its membership was mostly made up of radical socialists and they believed that they were fighting for the elimination of inequality and to return law and order (morality) to Germany.  Once in power, Hitler no longer needed this army of “useful idiots” –as Lenin called such people—and in June/July 1934 ordered a purge of the whole organization.  This purge, known as “The Night of the Long Knives,” resulted in the death of hundreds of the SA’s leaders and imprisonment of thousand of its members.  In the end, it was their own side that made Germany into one of the bloodiest authoritarian regimes of the 20^th century (only surpassed by Communist Russia and Mao’s China).]

The truth is that there are elements within both the Republican and Democratic parties that threaten our freedom.  Some claim to be Conservative while others declare themselves Liberals.  Sometime they are religious, but just as often they are secular.  But the titles do not matter.  What is important—what we must ask ourselves- is, “Are they furthering liberty for all or are they just using specific issues to manipulate me into being a ‘useful idiot?’

Lastly, we need to accept the reality that we have greater influence over our friends than our enemies.  This means that we have a better chance of protecting our rights and freedoms from the threats within our own side.  This does not mean that we ignore threats from our opponents or that we assume that they are policing themselves.  It does mean that we have two eyes and all liberty loving Americans need both wide-open, one looking left while the other looks right.

Race and Culture are not synonymous

When I was growing up my best friend was named Brad.  His father was a Nissei (a second generation American of Japanese descent) and his mother was from Japan itself.  So racially Brad was 100% Japanese. But not once did it occur to me to think of him as anything other than an American because that is what he was culturally.  He was just another kid on the street who loved baseball, rock music, skateboarding, and all the other activities American kids enjoyed at the time.  

True, there were some Japanese influences but they were never strong enough to overcome the environmental influences of being born and raised in America.  The result is that although he could physically blend in on any street in Japan, he would be the proverbial fish out of water culturally.  This was clearly demonstrated when, in university, he minored in Japanese and failed.  Of course, he had no problem in the English-based classes and graduated with high honors.

Through this and similar experiences I learned that there is a huge difference between one’s race and one’s culture.  That one is a product of nature while the other is the result of nurture.  Furthermore, at an early age, I understood that there is no inherent connection between the two.  This is clearly shown in the definition of the words.  As Webster’s College Dictionary defines them:

Race refers to a group of persons related by common 

descent or heredity 

Culture is the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another [Author’s note: usually through language] 

From these definitions it is clear that neither one has anything to do with the other.  So you can imagine my surprise (make that shock) when I see people use the words as if they have the same meaning.  For example, when the French interior minister, Claude Gueant, recently declared some “civilizations superior” to others he was called a “cultural racist” by some political groups.  The racist label is also applied to anyone who opposes multiculturalism or supports an English-only agenda.  

I myself have been called a racist because I believe that there is a distinct American culture that needs to be cherished and protected.  I take this view because I understand that America was never based on race but on ideas and culture is what holds it all together.  Remember that culture is the “sum ways of living” and “transmitted from one generation to another” and language is the primary method of transmission.  Without a common culture and common language to transmit the culture there is no America, just pockets of distinct and separate groups trying to get along with each other.  (This is the destructiveness of multiculturalism and I hope I am not around to see the end result of such nonsense bred out of ignorance.)

Of course, it is not uncommon for those with political agendas to manipulate words in order to gain support from those who do not know any better.  But recently I have been seeing this misuse of the words 'culture' and 'race' from people who should know better.   

I am currently reading Why Nations Fail by two very highly educated and knowledgeable men.   Daron Acemoglu is a Professor of Economics at MIT, while James Robinson is a Professor of Government at Harvard.  Clearly, these men should know the definitions of words like race and culture.  Yet, they confuse the two.  In chapter 2 they discuss the Culture Hypothesis on why there is economic inequality in the world.  They use several examples to illustrate that this hypothesis does not work.  One example is the fact that people of Mexican descent live and dominate both the Mexican and American sides of Nogales, a city which straddles the border.  Yet, the Mexican side is impoverished while the American side is relatively prosperous.  From this they conclude that culture plays no role in the development (or lack of development) of either side.  

By using this logic, my friend Brad should have traditional Japanese values, attitudes, and behavior.  Yet, as I explained above, since he was raised and educated in the United States—and not Japan-- he was and is culturally American.  This is the same for most of those living in the American side of Nogales.  They may look like and share many cultural similarities with their neighbors to the south but they are not the same.  Their upbringing in the United States altered them culturally, even though they may remain racially intact.

In another example, the authors use the degree that Latin American countries still have indigenous populations (race) to discredit the Cultural Hypothesis.  They highlight the fact that Colombia has a small indigenous population relative to those of Bolivia and Ecuador, yet all have about the same per capita income level.  Therefore, they claim, culture cannot be a factor.  This argument is so faulty that I do not know where to begin.  It completely ignores the fact that, since all three were Spanish colonies, they all now have similar cultures.  The only other way this argument can work is if we assume that the indigenous population has remained unchanged by those colonial experiences.  But to accept this argument is to go to a place like central Mexico and expect the people there to be dressed in Aztec garb, waving obsidian swords, and making human sacrifices to the gods.  I have been there and this does not happen, except in the shows for tourists.  The cold truth is that, while many are racially indigenous, the indigenous culture has been completely eradicated and replaced (or modified) by the Spanish culture.

The inability to distinguish culture from race is very dangerous and it is disturbing that academics fail to recognize the differences.  On a macro level it destroys the bonds that hold the modern nation-state together.  On a micro level it is racism in its purist form since it forces us to see race as a determinant of behavior.  This misunderstanding has led to some very dark moments in history.  A victim of one of those moments was Brad’s dad.  He was forced to spend several years of his childhood in an internment camp because people could not discern between being racially Japanese and culturally American.  It is shocking and sad that over 60 years later we still suffer from the same ignorance.

American liberty? Think again!