Written by Vladimir Moss


      The issue of whether Britain should stay in the European Union or leave it (the so-called "Brexit" option) may seem a relatively parochial one with little relevance to Orthodox Christians round the world. It is not even high on the EU’s agenda, as the contemptuous – and foolish - way in which the Europeans rejected Britain’s demands for reform yesterday demonstrates. However, if Britain does say “no” to EU membership and leaves the Union (the referendum will probably take place sometime in 2016), it could have major implications for the stability of the New World Order – and therefore should be welcomed by everybody who is hoping for that Order’s demise…

     For the purposes of this article, we may define the New World Order as that powerful cabal which seeks to destroy national sovereignties, religious differences and traditional moral values in order to create a single world government which alone, according to the cabal, will be capable of fighting such global evils as climate change, population growth, resource impoverishment, etc. Whether these global evils, if they exist, are really so evil, and whether a world government is really the only or the right means to tackle them, is not something that will be discussed here. Suffice it to say that for an Orthodox Christian the New World Order must already be considered an extreme evil because it seeks to destroy traditional religion and morality.

     Now the New World Order, in spite of its apparent strength, is already under very serious attack. The most obvious direction of attack is from the Muslim world. The Muslims are undermining the NWO in two ways.

     First, there is the direct, military assault on the West’s economic interests in the Middle East by Islamic states and groups of various kinds. Although western governments are commonly derided for intervening in the Middle East for the sake of oil, the fact is that the dependence of the West on oil, and hence its crucial importance for the West’s survival, cannot be underestimated. If the flow of oil from the Middle East to the West were to dry up, then the West’s economy would very quickly seize up and social and political chaos would ensue. The only western nation that could possibly survive such a shock would be the United States because of its new indigenous resources opened up by fracking, and because of its world-wide military power, which would enable it, if necessary, to get its oil from other places by force. However, if Europe and Japan were to go under, the USA would almost certainly go under too.

     The second way in which the NWO is being attacked by the Muslims is their peaceful – or, increasingly, not so peaceful – invasion of western countries through migration. The growth of Muslim influence in the West is rapid and inevitable for one simple reason: the Muslims have large families, whereas westerners prefer to abort their children. Almost all the countries of Europe now have rapidly aging populations and demographic growth rates well below that which would sustain the dominance of white, non-Muslim populations. Experience shows that when Muslims reach about 20% of any nation’s population, they become uncontrollable – no-go areas for whites (especially blonde female whites), sharia law operating in parallel with constitutional law, the take-over of schools and universities, the censoring of all anti-Muslim comment, secret (and not-so-secret) murders of “dissidents”, etc. It looks as if Sweden has already reached this stage – helped, of course, by the exceptionally liberal ideology of the Swedish state.

     Essentially, the battle to stop the Muslims’ internal take-over of the West has already been lost. There is no way that western governments can now stop this short of resorting to civil war against the Muslim population – or building a wall between whites and Muslims on the model of Israel’s wall along the West Bank. But this is not only not remotely practical: it is excluded by the NWO’s human rights ideology.

     The Europeans, however, have a strategy; it is the strategy of complete and unconditional surrender. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel signified the triumph of this strategy when last summer she opened the gates of her country to massive, unprecedented and more-or-less uncontrolled migration from the Muslim Middle East. Already the government measures this has necessitated – such as turning German citizens out of their own properties in order to accommodate migrants – as well as the totally unacceptable behavior of some migrants – such as defecating in public places, and demanding the services of prostitutes at government expense – has created bitter opposition to her policies, and she is beginning a small and hesitant retreat from them. But the game is up; the enemy is already within the gates; there is essentially nothing that the West European states can do except accept the inevitable. As the saying goes: “If you can’t beat them, join them.”

     However, it is a little different in Eastern Europe. Hungary’s President Orban has defied Germany’s “moral imperialism”, as he puts it, and refuses to let the Muslims settle in his country. Slovakia has agreed to take migrants, but only if they are Christians – the only country so far that seems to be concerned to protect Christian civilization. The Romanians say, quite reasonably, that if they cannot absorb their Gipsy Roma population, how can they be expected to take in untold numbers of unassimilable Muslims? Meanwhile, the Bulgarians, in a quiet but determined fashion, have built a wall along their frontier with Turkey…

     Greece is in a different position again. Completely helpless to stop the flood of Muslims crossing the Aegean Sea by boat, but entirely dependent on the EU to sustain their vast debt, the Greeks can only look on hopelessly as their Orthodox culture is invaded and destroyed. The Marxist government of Tsipras has reneged on its promise to leave the EU if the Europeans did not release them from their debts. So a “Grexit” seems unlikely in the near future. In any case, the atheist socialist, quasi-totalitarian ideology of the EU is close to the heart of the atheist Marxist Greeks.



     And then there is Britain… On the face of it, the threat Brexit presents to the European Union does not seem as great as the disobedience of the Eastern Europeans or the chaos of the Greeks. The negotiations are taking place in a relatively gentlemanly manner (if the Eurocrats can be called gentlemen) and not under the threats of such things as mass invasion, national bankruptcy, etc. Moreover, it may well be asked: what if Britain does leave the European Union? What real difference will that make to the NWO? After all, Britain was one of the countries at the very foundation of the NWO. Whether in or out of Europe, it is not likely to abandon its adherence to NWO’s basic philosophy; Britain is not going to “go it alone” in any real sense.

     All this is true, but it fails to grasp the most important point: that there is a momentum in politics, “a tide in the affairs of men”, as Shakespeare put it, and that Britain’s exit, combined with the Muslim invasion, the East European “rebellion”, the Greek crisis, the financial crisis, the mass youth unemployment, the separatist tendencies of the Scots, the Catalans and others, and the rapid rise of right-wing anti-EU movements in almost all the EU countries – may just tip the balance against stability, against the survival of the European project. Europeans tend to dismiss British concerns because they have been expressed over a long period of time and have never come to anything – so far. But British adherents of Brexit – who now number over 50% of the population, according to polls – have the bit between their teeth, and have powerful allies in the very highest reaches of government and business. Moreover, British discontent with the EU is not particularist, or not only particularist – that is, it is not aimed only, or mainly, at European policies that discriminate just against Britain. The British eurosceptics are concerned with more wide-ranging issues that go to the very heart of the European project, its very raison d’être – issues such as the enormous corruption and unaccountability of the European Commission, its totalitarian tendencies and general lack of democracy, and above all, its creeping destruction of national sovereignty.

     Now we have seen that the destruction of national sovereignty is one of the aims of the NWO, and the European Union was founded in 1957 with the explicit aim of “ever-increasing union” between its member-countries – an aim that the British flatly reject. If Britain succeeds in leaving the Union, then it will be seen by everyone with eyes to see that that aim has not been achieved, and looks unlikely ever to be achieved… Moreover, Europe is the jewel in the crown of the worldwide NWO project, which cannot be allowed to fail. For if Europe, with its long, complicated and violent history, and great diversity of peoples and cultures, can be welded into one new nation, then there is good hope that other projects of welding smaller nations into larger ones in other parts of the globe will also succeed eventually. If, on the other hand, the union of Europe comes to a halt and even starts to go backwards, then the whole project is under threat…

     That is why, beneath the smiles and the gentlemanly diplomacy, there is a steely determination on the part of the Eurocrats not to allow Britain to go her way. If they were sensible, they would make some concessions to the British Prime Minister David Cameron, a Europhile at heart, who wants to campaign in the coming referendum campaign that Britain stay in the Union, but who needs concessions from his “European partners”, as he puts it, in order to present a convincing case to the electorate. But the Europeans have now said “no, no, no” to his demands (imitating the Eurosceptic Mrs. Thatcher in the 1980s), thereby placing Cameron in a very difficult position – and making “Brexit” that much more likely. 

     Today’s leader in The Daily Mail, Britain’s most popular daily newspaper thundered: “What a charade! From beginning to end, just as the Mail predicted, the Brussels summit followed the familiar choreography of the EU spinmeisters 

     Act One: the show of intransigeance, with figures such as European Council President Donald Tusk declaring that key British demands for reform are ‘unacceptable’.

     Act Two: the dramatic late-night talks, this time over a four-hour dinner of chicken terrine, filet de biche (venison) and spiced oranges. 

     Act Three: the ‘breakthrough’ or, in David Cameron’s words, the ‘pathway to an agreement’. Much work still to be done… etc., etc. but the way is now clear, we’re assured, for ‘fundamental change’ in a deal to be finalized in February. 

     “So much for the well-worn script: the reality couldn’t be more different. 

     “Indeed, the derisory 33-word communique fails to conceal that, yet again, absolutely nothing of any significance was achieved.

     “There was a ‘political exchange of views’ on the UK’s referendum plans, it says, while ‘the members of the European Council agreed to work closely to find mutually satisfactory solutions’. In other words, deadlock…”[1]

     When Britain leaves the EU in the summer or autumn of next year, it will most likely lift the drawbridge connecting the island to the continent, stopping further migrants. Thus will be fulfilled an ancient Greek prophecy: “England for the Saxons only”. Whether that, together with other measures to secure that the government actually controls its own people, will actually solve the problem of the Muslim takeover remains to be seen. One thing, however, is certain, however: Britain will again be a sovereign power able to control her borders. Which is more than can be said for the European Union…



     In about the year 635, the great Byzantine-Syriac city of Damascus fell to the Muslims. The bishop of the city stood on the wall of the city and greeted the conquering Khalid with the words: “Abu-Sulaiman, thy case is prospering and thou has a promise to fulfill me, let us make terms for the this city.” The terms for the city were described in an agreement which read as follows: “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful. This is what Khalid would grant to the inhabitants of Damascus if he enters therein: he promises to give them security for their lives, property and churches. Their city walls shall not be demolished, neither shall any Moslem be quartered in their houses. Thereunto we give them the pact of Allah and the protection of his prophet, the caliphs and the ‘Believers’. So long as they pay the poll tax, nothing but good shall befall them…”[2]

     God – the true God, not Allah – was merciful to the Orthodox Christians of Syria at that time, and Khalid the Caliph largely fulfilled his promises. This was probably because most of the Christians remained faithful to Orthodoxy. (On the wall of the city together with the bishop there stood the grandfather of St. John of Damascus, who confessed the faith against both Islam and Iconoclasm some one hundred years later.) The situation is very different today. The Orthodox Christians of Syria have for many decades now been in communion with the Monophysite heretics, and hierarchs such as Metropolitan Georges Khodre have openly apostasised through their acceptance of Islam. So a new, much crueler caliph has been sent to torment them.

     But of course the Syrians are not alone in their apostasy. Throughout the Middle East and Eastern Europe the Orthodox have apostasized from True Orthodoxy, hob-nobbing and worshipping with popes and cardinals, with rabbis and imams. And so through an ineluctable justice God has sent His avenging hordes westwards, while the NWO Europeans, totally unable to defend their own borders, have appeased them in the grossest way, not only politically but – much more seriously – religiously as well. But like all appeasers, they will not succeed in their aim: their abject surrender will only excite the contempt of the Muslims and therefore their cruelty against those who, in their opinion, are too despicable to be worthy of mercy. Real salvation will come only through a return to the truth faith. But in the meantime a good first step would be the re-establishment of national sovereignty and national frontiers as against the borderless NWO. And for that first step Britain’s exit from Europe will be a very welcome example and incentive…


December 6/19, 2015.

[1] The Daily Mail, September 19, 2015, p. 16.

[2] Daniel J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972, p. 18.

‹‹ Back to All Articles
Site Created by The Marvellous Media Company