Defining Anglospheric Identity in the Post-Neoliberal Political Order
[1.0] Conceptual Primer
[1.1] Political Order
A Political Order is the dominant worldview through which to experience political phenomena.
For a brief overview, see [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[1.0].
For an in-depth exploration, please visit the Definitions section of CivilizationStack.
[1.2] Anglospheric Identity
[1.2.1] Identity
Identity refers to the collective sense of self shared by a group of people, rooted in a common language, history, culture, values, and institutions. It manifests through shared narratives, traditions, symbols, and social practices that reinforce a group's continuity over time and its distinction from others. Cultural Identity, in particular, emphasizes the shared cultural framework that shapes how individuals within the group perceive the world, interpret events, and engage in collective action. It is both in the generic and cultural sense of identity that we are seeking to define Anglospheric Identity.
[1.2.2] Anglospheric Identity
Anglospheric Identity is the cultural and political identity shared by the Five Eyes nations – the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – grounded in a common heritage of the English language, legal and political traditions, and cultural values. This identity emerges from a shared history of British colonial expansion, which transplanted English institutions, customs, and governance models across continents. While each nation developed distinct national identities, they remain connected by foundational principles such as common law, parliamentary governance, individual liberties, and a shared cultural canon. Anglospheric Identity also embodies a transnational sense of solidarity, reinforced by alliances in defense, intelligence, trade, and cultural exchange, reflecting a persistent, if evolving, sense of kinship among these English-speaking nations.
[1.3] National Subsidiarity
Subsidiary is a principle in social and political philosophy that holds that matters should be handled by the smallest, most local level of authority that is capable of addressing them effectively. National Subsidiarity applies this concept of subsidiarity at the national level, particularly within the context of multi-state identities that require differentiated expression according to national contextual factors.
In short, National Subsidiarity is a strategic approach to governance and identity management that harmonizes local autonomy with supranational cooperation. It is particularly relevant in the context of multi-state identities like the Anglosphere, where shared cultural bonds coexist with diverse national contexts. By allocating authority to the most local level capable of effective action, it preserves national sovereignty while fostering collective identity and international cooperation.
[1.4] Christian Religious Framework (CRF)
The Christian Religious Framework (CRF) is a societal paradigm that recognizes Christian doctrines as foundational. This foundational narrative is essential:
to solidify a common pool of metaphors for mythmaking, rooting the worldview of a Western polity in its original founding story; and
to guide the governance and culture of a Western polity in accordance with these foundational myths, as interpreted by contemporary standards.
While grounded in the core problems Christianity traditionally seeks to address – such as sin, redemption, community, and transcendence – the CRF molds these doctrines to guide broader political and pragmatic objectives that are necessary at the civilizational level. At its heart, the CFR is an attempt at formulating a model for Civilizational Christianity; a model which is informed by the full and rich tradition and history of Christian thought and practice, and which is capable of drawing on these to respond practically to contemporary problems.
Much like a Kuhnian Scientific Paradigm, the CRF offers a structured lens through which citizens interpret the world, promoting a shared set of assumptions, legitimizing standards, and endorsed ways of being. These elements include:
Core Problems: The CRF contextualizes societal and individual challenges through the Christian narrative, framing issues like suffering, order, and morality within a redemptive arc.
Base Assumptions: It establishes metaphysical and ethical baselines, such as the existence of a divine order, the inherent fallibility of humanity, and the potential for salvation or improvement through adherence to CRF principles.
Standards of Legitimacy: The CRF provides criteria for evaluating the righteousness of individuals, regimes, and their respective actions. Legitimacy is measured not merely by adherence to dogma but by alignment with the framework’s political and social objectives.
Endorsed Ways of Being: It prescribes explicit methods and codes of conduct, promoting a societal ethos that aligns external behavior with internalized Christian virtues, albeit selectively interpreted to support statecraft and societal cohesion.
As a supporting pillar to the worldview component of a Political Order, the CRF is not merely a religious construct but a governing schema. It serves as a supplementary (or dominant) interpretative framework for political reality, thus shaping policy, law, and cultural norms. The CRF integrates religious symbolism and narratives into statecraft, using them to legitimize authority, mobilize the populace, and provide a coherent story of a nation's or of a supranational coalition’s past, present, and future.
In essence, the Christian Religious Framework is a politically adaptive, mythopoetic system that wields Christian tradition as an instrument for cultivating societal unity and advancing pragmatic governance, prioritizing the stability and power of the regime over strict theological fidelity.
[2.0] Identity in the Neoliberal Political Order (NPO)
[2.1] Identity Problems Addressed by the NPO
Inclusive of the general problems outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[2.1], the Neoliberal Political Order (NPO) sought to address the social, cultural, and national fragmentation which occurred throughout the decline and fall of European empires – the British Empire being the most salient one – after World War II.
Anglospheric identity had previously been rooted in shared cultural and political ties, inherited through the traditions of English-speaking nations with strong historical bonds to Britain. This identity was inextricably linked to a shared history of British colonialism and Empire and the spread of English language, values, and institutions across the Anglosphere polities.
However, as former British colonies gained independence and decolonized, each Anglosphere polity attempted to form its own national identity. In addition, the decline of the British Empire coincided with significant demographic shifts as a result of waves of migration from former British colonies (and from Britain) to the Anglosphere polities. For example, the UK saw the arrival of the Windrush Generation, marking the beginning of large-scale post-WWII migration from former British colonies in the Caribbean, Africa, and Indian subcontinent. Subsequent waves of migration from the Indian subcontinent as well as Commonwealth countries led to racial, social, and cultural tensions, especially in light of ongoing economic challenges within the UK and the Anglosphere. Canada also saw post-war immigration from former British colonies, and a large number of British citizens emigrated to Canada; many British citizens also emigrated to Australia and New Zealand.
Despite these waves of migration – and some resulting social, cultural, and ethnic tensions – the idea of a unified Anglospheric identity still held some influence during the Cold War. However, as the NPO emerged against the backdrop of the Cold War, its rejection of collectivist identities led to multiculturalism as the only way to incorporate diverse groups of people into a market economy. In addition, the Anglosphere polities faced a reckoning over racism and colonialism as the Civil Rights movement extended the presumption of equality, dignity, and humanity to minority groups, further reducing the legitimacy of overarching national identities.
[2.2] Identity Assumptions of the NPO
In response to the problems outlined in [2.1], the NPO developed a core guiding assumption that human flourishing is an individualist and consumption-based endeavour. The good life and individual purpose were to be defined by personal economic success and access to consumer goods. One’s sense of personal identity was to be defined by participation in this consumerist project, rather than through one’s group belonging, ethnic heritage, or assimilation to an overarching propositional identity.
The NPO embraced core assumptions about the inherent sanctity and dignity of every human life and the primacy of the rule of law at face value, but also assumed that the Christian roots of these assumptions was no longer important. It was assumed that in the new decolonized world, diverse cultural groups and religions could live together harmoniously without requiring an ultimate religious narrative or identity, provided they could participate freely as economic agents and consumers in the free market.
As outlined at [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[2.2], when the unique synthesis of globalist free trade and individualist consumerism are tied together through market fundamentalism, absent any intermediary national focus, multiculturalism becomes the preferred social program for identity formation within a given neoliberal polity under NPO. Any given group of people need common narratives and myths to bind them together as an operational unit. In a post-imperial and post-colonial world, what can bind the citizens of a given Anglosphere country together? What can bind all the Anglospheric polities together?
As per [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[2.2], the NPO offers only one answer: a balkanized “choose your own adventure” market of personal narratives, where we can be whoever and whatever we want to be. It is under this framework that it is conducive to the formation of truly idiosyncratic narratives – where downstream of the act of accepting the individual as the unit of society is the act of accepting agglomerations of individual identities – that multiculturalism is further accepted as the preferred intermediary narrative paradigm.
Within the NPO’s globalist-individualist-multiculturalist framework of identity, the primacy of an Anglospheric identity itself cannot be assumed; rather, other ties – such as those with the Commonwealth – are afforded increasing importance. Wherever a more unifying identity would have been accepted before the NPO, a more pluralistic and factional identity structure is instead preferred during the NPO.
[2.3] Identity Standards of Legitimacy in the NPO
As outlined at [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[2.3], a polity operating under the NPO is one that uses economic growth and financial market stability as its guiding key performance indicators on the international stage: GDP growth and the maintenance of investor confidence are sacred cows.
There is no regime legitimacy to be derived in creating and maintaining a unified narrative, or a unified story which tells the citizens of each country
who they are,
how they belong to the country of their citizenship or residence, and
what unites them all to each other and to the other Anglosphere polities.
Instead, in the NPO, peoples must be stripped of their overarching narratives in order to be converted into fragmented individuals who drive GDP growth with their brand-aligned purchases. The average individual’s identity in the NPO is a series of brand affiliations that are tribally adhered to; the search for belonging never ends, it merely transfers from one site of worship to another – from the temples of the state to the temples of the corporations.
[2.4] Identity Methods of the NPO
Under the NPO, the strength of cultural and religious diversity is always assumed, whereas the necessity of a Christian framework is rejected. No other unifying narrative is provided as the centrality of the Christian identity falls away. In this framework, the only acceptable method for identity formation is to impose the unsubstantiated standard of tolerance on the majority populations of the Anglospheric polities. There is only room for an identity based on who the nation and its citizens tolerates, rather than for any propositional identity. Religious tolerance must be afforded from the majority population to the minority population(s). This means that minority religions and identities must be protected from harsh criticism or hostility, while the majority religion and identity must accommodate the sensitivities of minority groups.
In addition, to maintain the narrative of multiculturalism, any historical reference to the history of the majority identity must be denied or erased from the historical record with painstaking meticulousness. For example, any suggestion that there is a shared cultural or ethnic heritage which unites the Germanic peoples (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) who first forged the kingdoms that would become England is being ruthlessly removed from the cultural memory. Recently, the University of Nottingham removed any reference to the term “Anglo Saxon” in its “Research Methods in Viking and Anglo-Saxon Studies,” replacing it instead with the more ethnically neutral “Early Medieval English.” The University of Cambridge also renamed its Anglo-Saxon England journal, preferring the title “Early Medieval England and its Neighbours.” Similar trends are occurring across the Anglosphere in the attempt to prevent any positive iteration of national identities based either on shared histories, ethnicities, or values.
In the meantime, in shame and guilt over a history of racism and colonialism, tolerance is increasingly interpreted as deference of the majority population to minority identities, be they sexual, ethnic, religious or racial minorities. The assumed equality of each individual in a polity gives way instead to a hierarchy of identities based on assumed privilege. Groups classed as “oppressor” identities must atone for their identity and defer to groups based on “oppressed” identities.
[3.0] Identity in the Post-Neoliberal Political Order (Post-NPO)
[3.1] Identity Problems Addressed by the Post-NPO
Inclusive of the NPO failures outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.1], the fundamental problem with defining Anglospheric identity and each polity’s national identity purely with reference to its tolerance, its emphasis on the individual, and its multicultural populations is that this is an inherently unstable conception. With no substantive core vision, this formation inevitably leaves a polity susceptible to conflict with, and between, groups with stronger group-based identities. There is no core narrative to hold competing groups within a single, unified vision, leaving a vacuum at the core of the national identity. Liberal principles can tell a nation and its state apparatus how to deal with groups who disagree with each other, but not what else to agree on, and what must never be tolerated. Freedom and tolerance alone cannot provide a propositional identity.
A fundamental failure of the NPO also lies in its failure to offer minority groups and immigrant populations any binding propositional identity, narrative, or religious framework to assimilate into. In order to leave the structure of one identity, there must another structure of identity to enter into.
While tolerance of minorities is a positive contrast to the Anglosphere’s previous histories involving racism and colonialism, an identity based only on tolerance of others cannot sustain itself in practice – another narrative will fill this propositional gap, and the most forceful narrative will capture this ground by default. Across the Anglosphere, to varying degrees, the policy of multiculturalism has not resulted in equal tolerance across all groups. It has, instead, resulted in deference of the majority group to the identities of minority groups with strong in group preferences. Among the Anglosphere, the worst iteration of this problem took place recently in the UK, in what is now collectively referred to as “Rotherham,” despite the phenomena spanning more than one British town. This refers to the British state’s repeated and overwhelming failure to respond to the horrific child rape and sexual offences committed predominantly by Pakistani, Muslim men against victims who were predominantly White, English, and working class. The perpetrators of these offences operated explicitly as groups and often indulged in strong in-group behaviour, treating their victims as a hated out-group – referring to them with derogatory racialized language, for example, and often singling them out as victims due to their race and class.
The racism of majority groups against minority groups is well recognized under the NPO, but the NPO has been unable to identify or reckon with racism and ethnic-based hostility between ethnic groups, or with racist hostility from minority groups for the majority population. However, this can no longer be ignored, as the majority populations of the Anglosphere have experienced these tensions directly.
Individualism alone has become a self-defeating proposition when faced with minority groups with stronger in-group identities. This provides the tolerant individual with no defense against strong group-based minority claims, leaving each polity susceptible to a constantly simmering forever war of factional inter-group conflicts of the ethnic variety. This has led to widespread anger and public outcry across the Anglosphere.
[3.2] Identity Assumptions of the Post-NPO
As outlined at [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.2], Neoliberal individualism is being rejected in favor of collective identities as the populace increasingly sees that only majority groups have had to operate purely as individual citizens with no in-group belonging. If minority groups in diverse societies can act with collective identities, it will no longer be assumed that this option is not available to majority populations.
The assumption that standards of tolerance and freedom can bind a nation together is giving way to the recognition of the need for a unifying propositional identity. This propositional identity must have the force both to bind the nation together and to assimilate any minority populations and immigrant populations. The NPO’s embrace of liberalizing border and immigration policies is being replaced by an understanding that cultural and religious groups that cannot, or will not, adopt the polity’s national identity cannot be offered citizenship or residence rights.
The NPO’s rejection of a religious framework is being reconsidered as the Christian underpinnings of the Anglosphere identity is being rediscovered. However, while the NPO only left room for the tolerant, forgiving strands of Christianity, this is now acknowledged as a deeply destabilizing standard which, alone, is unable to protect the majority population against threats from minority groups with stronger religious adherence and in-group preferences. The form of Christianity which becomes central to the new Anglosphere identity and the identity of each of its polities must be able to embrace both its forceful and its tolerant traditions to respond to this challenge.
Hyper-globalization and the assumption that anyone can become a citizen of anywhere is being replaced by the recognition that shared ethnic ties can form a key part of a nation’s identity. Nations which have previously been part of the same Empire can transcend ethnic differences and share in the history and heritage of the Empire; however, this can only occur with a strong, positive, propositional national narrative which has the force to bind disparate groups and unify them into a singular overarching story.
While an Anglospheric identity based on this shared history is necessary, each polity also has its own complex and unique history and complex demographic challenges. Therefore, this shared, propositional, positive Anglospheric identity must operate through National Subsidiarity, based on the unique nuances of each polity, but under a common Christian Religious Framework. As this overarching identity becomes shared across the Anglosphere, the Anglosphere polities may develop an interest in responding to threats to this identity in each other’s jurisdiction – a transnational sense of solidarity, reinforced by alliances in defense, intelligence, trade, and cultural exchange.
[3.3] Identity Standards of Legitimacy in the Post-NPO
As outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.3], the main thread of legitimacy in the Post-NPO is managed stability. This standard is also key to creating a unified Anglosphere identity and allowing each polity to then manage the implementation of this identity at the national level.
A Post-NPO regime will be legitimate if it can maintain a unified Anglospheric Identity that operates through National Subsidiarity under a common Christian Religious Framework, across the entire Anglosphere. To maintain legitimacy, each polity must implement this Framework in a way which is capable of uniting diverse groups of people within their polities and which is capable of successfully deterring threats to this identity from monitory groups with strong in-group identities. Tolerance of fifth column minority groups who engage in diaspora politics, foreign interference, and active hostility against majority groups will no longer be tolerated.
[3.4] Identity Methods of the Post-NPO
As outlined in [Defining the Post-Neoliberal Political Order]:[3.4], we are still living through an interregnum; in this period between Political Orders, several clusters of acceptable tools and techniques are consolidating and being implemented. As these pertain to the question of an Anglospheric Identity, the existing NPO’s method of denying the shared ethnic and religious heritage of each Anglosphere country is no longer tenable. Instead, the Anglosphere’s Christian, ethnic and cultural heritage is being rediscovered, with a renewed focus on the civilizational strands of Christianity.
Under this new paradigm, methods which were antithetical to the previous NPO are becoming increasingly possible and even desirable. These include implementing immigration policies which require adherence to the primacy of the nation’s identity and religious values as a condition of entry, residence, and citizenship. Freedom of religion and freedom of thought will remain central to the Anglosphere polities, but this will be understood as a Christian paradigm with no equivalent concept of “secularism” in any other tradition. Therefore, any religion or identity which seeks to forcibly impose itself either via extra-legal methods (such as execution of citizens for supposed blasphemy) or via legal methods (such as the demand for alternative court and education structures) will be removed from the framework via legal and political methods. Given that each Anglosphere polity has its own unique demographic and cultural circumstances, the specific methods will be left to each national polity; however, each polity will work towards this same common propositional identity based on a common Christian Religious Framework.
Further, as each Anglosphere polity formulates its own Industrial Policy, the identity of each country may incorporate wider identity markers based on what the nation can produce, distribute, sell, and what it can pass on to its future generations. Work matters in the Post-NPO and identities formed around the flows of production and commerce will reemerge.
This is important stuff! Anglo culture (and western civilization more broadly) became so ubiquitous that people stopped recognizing it as such (and assigning it value as such).