You are on page 1of 7

BREXIT, DEMOCRACY AND THE ANTICHRIST

British commentators are describing the failure of the British parliament to


fulfill the will of the people and take Britain out of the European Union as a
failure of democracy that even portends the collapse of democracy itself.
Whether or not democracy will fall is difficult to say. What we can say with more
certainty is that the Brexit process has revealed the internal contradictions of
democracy as nothing else.

This is indeed a remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, situation. On June 23,


2016, in the largest democratic vote in its history, the British people voted by a
narrow but decisive majority (52% to 48%) that their country should leave the
European Union. Then, in 2017, both of the major parties formally committed
themselves in their manifestos to implementing this decision, and then voted
overwhelmingly that the date of Brexit should be March 29, 2019. Now we are
past that date, and yet Britain is still in the European Union, while every means
of extracting her from Europe in an orderly manner – that is, through a legal
treaty agreement with the Union – has failed to pass in parliament. The reason
does not lie in the evil machinations of any actor, whether British or European.
The reason lies in the fact that there is no majority for any single course of action.
In other words, there is no single will of the people, neither a Rousseauist
general will, nor a single proposed course of action that commands a majority in
parliament. And since democracy cannot work without a majority, that means
that democracy in “the mother of parliaments” has ceased to work.

Democracy is a mechanism for getting things done in a divided community


that would otherwise fragment. In a monarchy the king decides, and that is the
end of the matter. He may or may not be wise, and he may or may not have the
agreement of the majority. In any case, the people accept his decision. In a
democracy there is no king. There is an elected executive, but in major decisions
the executive cannot act without the consent of the majority of elected
representatives. In this Brexit process, not only has the executive failed to get a
majority for its preferred course of action: parliament has failed to agree on any
other course of action. There is a total impasse.

The logical course now, in the opinion of many, is to have a general election or
another referendum. But in the opinion of many others, this would be
undemocratic as putting the original decision, by 17.4 million people, in
jeopardy. In any case, there is no guarantee that it would resolve the impasse:
more votes may mean still more division and sclerosis – and more passion.

A radical solution would be the break-up of the United Kingdom, allowing, for
example, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which both voted to stay in the
European Union in 2016, to make their own decisions and make their own treaty
with the Union, while Wales and England, which voted to leave, would similarly
make their own decisions. But where would that leave London, which, unlike the
rest of England, voted to remain? And would the European Union agree to
negotiate with what were now in effect separate countries?
We are reminded of the Lord’s words: “A house that is divided cannot stand.”
Believers in democracy claim that it is the panacea for all division, a way of
resolving conflicts in a peaceful and just manner. But the present situation
proves that this is not always the case. In the past, democracy failed because the
people unwisely voted for a person or power bent on destroying democracy –
such as the revolutionary socialists in Russia in 1917, or the national socialists in
Germany in 1933. Today, as far as we can tell, there is no Lenin or Hitler waiting
in the wings to take over the rule of Britain. And yet democracy has manifestly
failed.

Democracy is based on a fiction: that there is such a thing as a single will of the
collective organism called the people, as opposed to the many wills of many
individual people. Of course, it is a useful fiction and serves a useful purpose in
very many situations. But it remains a fiction, and it is important to understand
why it is untrue.

Democracy is based on an aggregate of many personal wills. This aggregate


changes from day to day, even from hour to hours; so there is no constant thing
called “the will of the people”. Moreover, at one time certain wills are good and
wise, whlle others are bad and unwise; whereas at other times the reverse may
be the case . Summing up an aggregate of wills by no means guarantees that the
collective pseudo-will that emerges will be good and wise. In other words,
democracy is only as good as the people and the wills that make it up at any
given moment.

The historian Norman Stone has expressed this important truth as follows:
“Hitler’s democratic triumph exposed the true nature of democracy.
Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or as bad, as the principles
of the people who operate it. In the hands of liberal and tolerant people, it will
produce a liberal and tolerant government; in the hands of cannibals, a
government of cannibals. In Germany in 1933-34 it produced a Nazi
government because the prevailing culture of Germany’s voters did not give
priority to the exclusion of gangsters…”

In a world pushed hither and thither by the “multimutinous” wills of men


(van the Terrible’s phrase), some kind of compromise must be effected if a
state of permanent war is to be avoided. Democracy is such a compromise. As
such, it is not to be despised by those who prefer relative peace to constant
war. But it must be recognized for what it is: a convenient fiction that
guarantees nothing except relative peace. It is a method of conflict resolution,
not a path to wisdom, or true peace and prosperity; and even as a method of
conflict resolution it has its limits, as the present impasse over Brexit has
proved. When a truly momentous decision approaches, democracy shows
itself to be at its weakest. For when supremely important issues are at stake,
relative peace becomes less important than truth. In an obscure but definite
way, the British people feel that the decision to leave the European Union is
one such momentous decision. Let us briefly examine why.
*

The root difference between “Leavers” and “Remainers” is not primarily


over economics, even if most of the argumentation we hear on the media is
indeed about economics. The Remainers believe that Britain’s long-term
economic interests lie in remaining within the very large free trading area that
is the European Union, and that leaving that area, with all its privileges,
would damage British business both in the short- and the long-term. The
Leavers accept that there might be some short-term disruption, but that the
long-term advantages of being able to conclude trading agreements with
countries all round the globe as an individual trading nation and not as a
member of the European cartel, outweigh the short-term losses.

But the Leavers care less about economics than about political sovereignty
and national identity. They argue that Britain in the European Union is no
longer a sovereign nation in that decisions passed in bodies such as the
European Commission and the European Court of Justice can overrule
decisions passed in the British parliament or the British courts. In other words,
Britain is a vassal state whose real ruler is no longer the Queen in parliament
but the (usually unelected) institutions of the European Union. This is not
disputed by the Remainers, who argue that political sovereignty is an
outdated concept in today’s globalized world whose problems can only be
solved by global or at any rate regional “super-nations”. Moreover, there is the
strong feeling among Remainers that the European Union represents
modernity, and that if Britain wants to be part of the modern world and
prosper in it she must integrate herself into it and not “miss the train” as it
leaves the station for a radiant if indeterminate future. But Leavers see this as
integration into a socialist super-power that exercises a despotic dominion
over its member-states. As that notable anti-socialist Margaret Thatcher said in
her famous Bruges speech in September, 1988: “We have not successfully
rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them re-imposed at a
European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from
Brussels.” And, as Norman Stone writes, “she said, about the tired metaphor
of not taking the European train as it was leaving the station, that ‘people who
get on a train like that deserve to be taken for a ride’.” 1

In the end, for the British citizen this argument comes down to the
question: do you feel yourself to be primarily European, and only secondly
British (or English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish), or primarily British? Remainers
see Brexit as a threat to their European identity, while Leavers see it as
reasserting their British identity. It is this question that particularly divides
the generations. Older people, who were born before Britain joined the
European Union (then only the European Economic Community) in 1975,
grew up in an independent Britain feeling Britain, not Europe, to be their real
home; whereas younger people, having been born into the European Union
see it as their real homeland. As Anthony Seldon writes, this issue of

1
Stone, The Atlantic and its Enemies, London: Penguin, 2010, p. 596.
“membership of the EU goes to the very heart of national identity. It is not
just about what people think or where they perceive their economic interests
to lie; it is about who they are.”2

Since this is a matter of individual and social psychology, it is unlikely that


it can be resolved by rational argument. But there is an aspect to this question
that transcends both economic and political arguments, and questions of
national identity and sovereignty. If Europe were a godly state from which
there issued godly laws and godly people and influences, we should be glad
to be part of it, as Britain was glad to be part of the Roman empire and
patriarchate in the so-called “Dark Ages”. But Europe today is the gateway
into the New World Order, whose creed is atheism and multicultural
ecumenism (especially Islamophilia), and whose morality is the immorality of
the LGBT rainbow, abortion on demand and the crazy world of universal
human rights.

As Orthodox Christians, we know that one day the Antichrist will be


enthroned as the head of a world government and global state. His rule will be
religious as well as political and economic. Among the main organs of
religious globalization are the World Council of Churches, which has already
ensnared all the Local Churches of World Orthodoxy, and the World
Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA). The latter was founded in
1959; although its aims are political and economic, it clearly has ramifications
for religious organization, as the following 1992 report makes clear: "Its
members in their turn are representatives of such organizations as, for
example: the United Nations, the World Council of Churches, Green Peace, the
World Muslim Congress, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Court,
and the ambassadors and ministers of many countries. This organization has
already arranged several meetings of a Provisional World Parliament and
passed eleven laws of a World Codex of laws. It is interesting that the WCPA
has divided the whole world into ten kingdoms, employing precisely that term
in English: 'kingdoms'. It is proposed that a new world financial system will be
introduced immediately the first ten countries confirm a World Constitution,
since the remaining countries will then be forced to accept this constitution for
economic reasons. At the present time the WCPA is trying to convene a
Constitutional Assembly so as to substitute the constitution of the USA for the
World Constitution. In 1990 the WCPA sent a letter to all heads of government
in which it declared the formation of a World Government, and after this
many leaders of states openly began to speak about the New World Order." 3

Now the American president in 1990 was George H.W. Bush, who saw
European unity as the model for world unity, while the core of that unity
would be the United Nations: "I see a world of open borders, open trade and,
most importantly, open minds; a world that celebrates the common heritage
that belongs to all the world's people.... I see a world building on the

2
Seldon, “J’Accuse!”, New Statesman, 29 March – 4 April, 2019, p. 23.
3
Pravoslavnaia Rus’ (Orthodox Russia), N 15, 1992, p. 16.
emerging new model of European unity. ... The United Nations is the place to
build international support and consensus for meeting the other challenges
we face.... the threats to the environment, terrorism... international drug
trafficking... refugees.... We must join together in a new compact -- all of us --
to bring the United Nations into the 21st century."

“I see a world building on the emerging new model of European unity.” So


global unity depends to a certain degree on European unity. Europe has a
huge diversity of nations, languages, traditions and creeds from which two
world wars have emerged in recent times. It follows that if unity can be
attained in such a divided and complex region, there is hope that the wider,
global unity can be achieved, too. If, on the other hand, European unity fails,
the march towards global unity and a single world government is also halted.
Hence the great importance of the Brexit issue for Europeans and globalists.

Like Marx and Lenin, today’s globalists believe in the march of history.
There is no arguing with History – if you do not want to be crushed by it and
cast into its dustbin… For, as Roger Bootle writes: “European integration has
had an air of inevitability about it. It seemed to be the summation and healing
of the past and the way of the future. Nation states were on the way out, passé.
A united Europe would embody the best of European traditions while
securing Europe’s future in the modern world.”4

But “what is the point of the EU? Is it to link together countries and peoples
that are ‘European’? Is it to link together countries and peoples that are
geographically close together? Is it to link together countries that conduct
themselves in a certain way and are prepared and able to obey EU law? Or is it
simply to carry on expanding as far as it can, because bigger is better, so that
the EU can be regarded as an early progenitor of global government?

“Without a clear answer to these questions, it is difficult to see why the EU


should not contemplate expansion to nations that are geographically close,
such as Israel or the countries of North Africa, even though they are not
strictly European. (Interestingly, the remit of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) does extend into the Middle East
and North Africa.) Or if the key concept is cultural, what about countries that
are European in character and history but are far distant, such as Canada,
Australia or New Zealand?

“This question is of exceptional importance. For if there is no clear answer


to the question of how far EU membership should spread, perhaps it should
be restricted to a smaller territory – or indeed, perhaps the EU should not exist
at all…”5

4
Bootle, The Trouble with Europe, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2015, p. 31.
5
Bootle, op. cit., p. 42.
There are other issues and nations threatening to undermine the unity of
Europe. The four “Vishegrad” countries of Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and
Hungary have set their minds firmly against uncontrolled migration and the
undermining of their Christian civilization by Muslim immigration; they are
defying ne the EU’s four major principles, that of free movement. These are
very important concerns that are felt in Britain, too – it is generally agreed that
the main motivation for the original Brexit referendum result was fear of
uncontrolled immigration.

And there are other incipient rebellions. Italy now has a government which
is openly Eurosceptic. France has a powerful anti-European party led by
Marine Le Pen. Germany’s AFD party is rapidly increasing its membership
and influence, and its leader recently made a powerful speech in the
Bundestag sympathizing with Britain and blaming the EU for Brexit. So-called
“populist” movements are spreading throughout Europe and threatening the
security of its centralizing elites.

There is a more than symbolic importance in the fact that the first country
to vote to leave the EU apart from tiny Greenland has been Britain. Was not
Britain the first country to build a truly global economy through its control of
the seas in the nineteenth century? And was it not Britain that first formulated
and popularized the principles of laissez-faire economics and parliamentary
democracy that the globalists pay lip-service to even if they disregard them in
practice? How then can this founder-member of the New World Order want to
leave the NWO? What does this tell us about the NWO?

The globalists do not want to face this question squarely, for it would
undermine faith in the radiant future of the globalizing movement, the
twenty-first century’s equivalent of the twentieth century’s Comintern. They
didn’t mind that tiny Greenland wanted to leave. But Britain must not be
allowed to leave. Or she should be allowed – but at such a cost to herself that it
would put off any other potential leavers. Otherwise, the whole global
experiment might be in jeopardy. So the Europeans continue to assert that the
problems of Europe can be solved, not by a reassertion of the sovereignty of
the nation-state, but only by “more Europe” – that is, the tightening of the
screws that bind the states of the European super-state together until the
nation-state is suffocated completely…

The expansionist, globalist project of which the European project is a part


recalls the very first such project in history, the Tower of Babel. Moreover, the
Europeans seem willingly to accept this parallel.

Thus Andrew Drapper writes: “The EU Parliament building is pretty


obviously intended to look like or is modelled after the biblical tower of babel.
Or perhaps more accurately it is modelled after Pieter Brueghel the Elder’s
painting ‘The Tower of Babel’ (1563).
“Though modernist in style, the parliament building is recognisably
intended to represent the unfinished Tower of Babel. This is further supported
by things like the famous Council of Europe poster depicting the EU
Parliament building in the process of being finished by the people of Europe.
The test on the poster, ‘Europe: Many Tongues, One Voice.’ Here a very strong
connection is made not only to the image of the Tower of Babel in Brueghel’s
painting, but also to the record of the Tower of Babel as recorded in the
Bible.”6

And so history has come round full circle: contemporary globalization


returns to the world’s first globalization project, Nimrod’s attempt to unite the
people in building a tower to reach from earth to heaven in order to make a
name for himself and to make himself equal to the gods. We know how that
attempt ended: it remains to be seen how the contemporary effort will end…

March 20 / April 2, 2019.


St. Cuthbert of Lindisfarne.

6
Drapper, “Why we MUST leave the European Union! Part One”, The Red Pill Report,
February 15, 2017.

You might also like