It's a seemingly innocuous article and interview and yet I
found it fascinating. It was an opportunity to revisit chapters of the past
that I know well and to connect a few dots and explore a few avenues that I
hadn't previously considered in depth.
Some will be aware of the post-war Habsburg attempt to base
or re-establish their family in Hungary. Unlike Austria with its Habsburg Law which was in reality an
Anti-Habsburg law, Hungary never formally renounced the Habsburgs nor the
monarchy. Indeed after the collapse of Austria-Hungary at the end of WWI and
the subsequent US sponsored partition of the empire, Hungary suffered a brief
communist period which was followed by the authoritarian rule of Admiral Miklos
Horthy who in 1920 took the tile of 'Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary', even
though he resisted any actual Habsburg claims. His regime would fall in 1944
when the Nazis ousted him and replaced with the Arrow Cross Party's fascist
rule. In 1946 the Republic of Hungary was established and of course the country
would fall under communist rule throughout the Cold War and be administered
under the aegis of the People's Republic of Hungary from 1949-1989.
The Habsburgs would begin to lay some groundwork for their
family's reinstatement during the Cold War and yet they couldn't move in
earnest until after the Berlin Wall came down. A new (Third) Hungarian republic
emerged after 1989 that still exists today but the country has never formally
renounced the monarchy and there's nothing on the books to formally or
officially renounce and reject any claim to the throne. Otto, the son of Karl
I, the last Habsburg ruler ousted in 1918 (and the cousin of the archduke in
the article) used Hungary as something of a base during these years as Austria
was still more than a little sensitive to the return of its former ruling
family. Indeed for many decades Otto was not allowed to even enter Austria and
the Habsburgs were only granted admittance upon renunciation of all their
claims. While the old capital of Vienna is closed to them apart from modern
parliamentary politics, the Habsburgs have long retained a hope of gaining a
foothold in the old eastern capital, Budapest. Did he really hope to see a
Constitutional Monarchy in Budapest? Perhaps but that cannot be proved. There
was talk of him becoming president and yet any ex-monarch would have mixed
feelings about such a position. Otto more or less gave himself to the
Pan-European project, serving as a German MEP and yet he always gave Hungary
special attention and worked to integrate it into the nascent EU structures.
It was interesting to hear the candid admission of
Traditionalist Catholic forces working hand in hand with the 'fantastic
Christian government' of Fidesz, the Right wing party headed by the professed
Calvinist Viktor Orban – who is also increasingly appreciated by American
Evangelicals. Orban along with Italy's Matteo Salvini have become heroes to the
Evangelicals who would see Europe tilt to the Right and embrace a
Re-Christianisation agenda.
There are some other interesting bits from the interview with
Habsburg. He speaks openly and in condemnation of Freemasonry which he blames
for the outbreak of WWI. It's an interesting conflation of Serbia's Black Hand
and the likes of Woodrow Wilson.
There are also some intriguing glimpses into the post-1989 maneuverings
on the part of Traditionalist Catholics in Central and Eastern Europe,
attempting to establish pro-Western 'Democratic' parties. Of course there's an
irony here in the fact that former Arrow Cross member Laszlo Pasztor was engaged
in the same activities with Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation.
Weyrich and Pasztor working through the Free Congress Foundation (FCF) united
with ex-fascists during the Cold War to oppose and undermine the Warsaw Pact
and after 1989 were active in steering the politics of these nations in the
direction of the West and membership in NATO.
Were they collaborating with or coordinating with the
Habsburgs or some of the other Catholic groups like the Knights of Malta? I
don't know but it's a tantalising question and if there are links, let's just
say I wouldn't be surprised.
My guess is there were many brands in the fire and the
linkage if any is found in the upper echelons of the Western Establishment,
probably a tier up from the likes of Pasztor and Weyrich. They had access to
those highest circles (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and heads of the CIA) but they
wouldn't necessarily be 'part of the club' nor would they run in the same
circles as the likes of Otto and Michael Habsburg.
Apart from the constant references to and affiliations with
the Knights of Malta – an organisation known to have ties to the Western Elite
with many of its members found in the upper ranks of government, business,
media and in the intelligence community, he also mentions his son who was
ordained as a priest connected to the Legion of Christ. The Legionaries are a
Catholic order that fell into disgrace regarding the depraved conduct of its
founder, the sodomite and paedophile Marcial Maciel. Maciel's reputation was
forever ruined but the order was given cover and effectively saved by the
actions of John Paul II. Apart from the salacious scandals, the organisation is
also well known as functioning along lines similar to Opus Dei, an ultra- traditionalist
order that functions as something like a cult and is also deeply connected with
fascist ideology and in some cases the fascistic political leaders within the
Roman Catholic world.
The picture being created by the Habsburg narrative
immediately reminds me of the various groups and organisations connected to the
Vatican Bank scandal, a tale of money laundering, dictatorships, paramilitary
groups, drugs and a host of dark deeds... all in the name of promoting Western
interests in opposition to any group that opposed them – all such groups being
identified as Left or Communist.
While the Vatican Bank scandal took down some rather
significant players, the mission continued and some of the same figures were
involved in the soft conquest of the former Warsaw Pact by the EU and NATO in
the 1990's and early 2000's. The West had its people on the ground, working the
politics, forming the alliances, spreading the money around and developing the
infrastructure to secure the gains over the next generation. Both Evangelicals
and Catholics worked on this project, sometimes hand in hand. Some groups were
within the mainstream while others represented (and still represent) more
extreme views. But they're all to one degree or another committed to the
Dominionist-Sacralist project of European Christendom in some form.
Habsburg's final comments were also interesting in that he
mildly defends Bergoglio-Francis and yet at the same time, all of his friends
and associates are leading the charge against him. One wonders just how candid
that remark was.
Politically speaking the Western Right and Far Right helped
to lay the social and even bureaucratic groundwork for Evangelicals and
Catholics working together on the Dominionist Neo-Christendom project and yet
the work also had to be done within the Churches themselves.
Opposed by Traditionalists, Vatican II nevertheless opened
doors and gave a certain degree of cover to those who would forge alliances and
collaborate on political projects.
Within Evangelical circles the groundwork was laid by Billy
Graham and other Evangelical leaders who turned their churches and
organisations in the direction of cultural engagement and Dominionist theology.
While soft when compared to today's expressions, the shift was underway and
began to really pick up in the wake of the 1974 Lausanne Conference. While
Francis Schaeffer was not fully on board with the ecumenical agenda and the way
it (even by the 1980's) was watering down the influence and legacy of the
Reformation, he nevertheless helped to lay the groundwork for what would happen
and the realities that exist today.
Colson's Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) seemed to
come out of the woodwork in 1994 but when one reflects on the larger context
and the events of the preceding decades it doesn't seem so surprising now. He
was really in many respects continuing the work of figures like Graham and
Schaeffer. A former Washington insider, he took their projects to the next
level and certainly ranged into areas Schaeffer would not have gone, but in
many respects the move was logical and the timing makes sense in terms of the
American culture war which was exacerbated by the election of Bill Clinton in
1992. And more importantly in terms of the present consideration the agenda
also makes complete sense in light of the events of 1989 and the attempts by some
to Re-Christianise Europe.
1989 was in some respects a crisis for the American Right.
The enemy which helped to define them was gone. But for Europe there was an
opportunity – to reach the nations that had suffered cultural downgrade under
Communism, and to the surprise of some, the people in these nations proved to
be more conservative in their inclinations and uncomfortable with the radical
and liberalising cultural changes that had taken place in Western post-war
Europe. It struck them as decadent and destructive and many in the East reacted
to it and began to incline toward Right-wing politics. There was a golden
opportunity for those who wanted to 'flip' these nations to the West and use
them to bolster the conservative and traditionalist project of
Re-Christianisation. Some, like Habsburg, Pasztor, Weyrich and others saw an
opportunity and they jumped on it. The various government agencies in places
like Washington were happy to throw money at them in order to wrest these
nations into the Western column.
Protestants had once understood that the greatest threat to
Biblical Christianity was in the form of the False Church and the Papal
Antichrist which loomed like a spectre over centuries of Church History. For
many Christians in Central Europe, the Pope was the head of this beast and yet
the Habsburgs represented its sword arm. If there were two centres of
persecuting religious evil for the Protestants of Central Europe, they were
Rome and Vienna. The Habsburg name was synonymous with evil.
The Evangelical movement under leaders like Graham and
Schaeffer brought about a paradigm shift. Secularism became the new enemy to be
feared and Rome within only a couple of generations shifted from grievous enemy
to ally. The threat and fear of Communism was used to bring about this shift in
a fairly short period of time and while for a decade or so the paramount enemy
became Islam, it's clear that once more the focus is on Humanistic Secularism.*
With this post-war Evangelical shift came a robust promotion
of the Kingdom (and by unvoiced implication The Church) as being co-equal and
co-extensive with Christendom. The Holy Realm was expanded to include the
culture in a way not seen before. In many respects the crises surrounding
secularisation fomented a reconsideration and re-casting of old concepts and
the newer expressions of the Kingdom (as elaborated by figures like Abraham
Kuyper) were even more comprehensive and monistic in their construction.
Whatever separatist or fundamentalist proclivities remained within the
Protestant West, they were all but eliminated during the decades spanning from
the 1940's to the 1980's. Today, to reject sacralist assumptions, to condemn
Dominionism as error and to reject the philosophical underpinnings of
worldview-ism is to be reckoned heterodox.
These shifts facilitated the alliance with Roman Catholicism
and its vast networks of influence. It also granted access to the deep
intellectual and academic wells from which Catholicism is able to draw. Rome
has been at the cultural game much longer than the Evangelicals and in many
cases possesses a richer and more thought-out heritage, one that Evangelicals
have been eager to embrace.
And so Protestants who at one time declared that it was
better to be under a Muslim Turk than a Habsburg, join forces with the elites
of the erstwhile Papal Antichrist in order to fight the new bestial powers.
They have joined forces with one older Beast to combat the new. Little do they
realise the heads of the Beast all belong to the same infernal Gehennic body.
I must with some reluctance admit that figures like Ian
Paisley realised this and yet his animosity while real was misplaced and
clouded by his own sacralist politics and hopes.** The vision and aspirations
of ecumenical Evangelical Christendom (that is the orthodoxy of our day) was
unacceptable to Paisley who retained a strict Protestant view and yet because
of his adherence to the sacral vision and the embrace of its consequentialist ethics,
his own testimony remains scarred and sadly has actually helped to drive British
Evangelicals into the arms of the new ecumenical paradigm.
There is a precedent for these shifts even in the Old
Testament. Indeed, Ishmael while innocuous enough in his own life nevertheless
(along with his mother Hagar) represents (in redemptive-historical terms) a
type of Judaizing Bestial theology, a form of failed and wayward apostasy, a
hope that remains earthbound and in bondage to its wants, proclivities and
paradigms. (See Galatians 4) And as such this false and apostate expression of
the covenant is bound to persecute the true.
Similarly Esau represents a worldliness that elevates and deifies
the belly, that makes an idol of worldly meats and concerns. Esau sold his
birthright and betrayed it for mere earthly wants because lost persons will
always despise the holy and always prefer the gold and silver of this world as
opposed to the treasures of heaven. He is rightly described as profane in
Hebrews 11.
The fact that these apostates formed a familial alliance in
Genesis 36 is hardly surprising. We should expect the apostates to join forces
and thus there is (as 1 Corinthians 10 teaches us) precedent for defectors and
covenant traitors to join forces and they will always persecute the true remnant,
the Biblically faithful Church. They will kill the faithful thinking they do
God service (John 16.2).
They think they are winning victories for the cause of Christ
but their glory is in reality their shame and even as they build the tombs of
the martyr-prophets they reveal themselves to be the progeny of their slayers
and the continuators of the dark and ancient legacy born of Cain. They
celebrate the Reformation and those who throughout Church history have stood
for the Bible. And yet in reality they spit on their graves and desecrate their
legacy.
----
*Some have interestingly tried to combine these two into some
kind Islamo-Marxist hybrid, but the attempts only demonstrate the ignorance or
deliberate deception on the part of the promoters who more than anything are
trying to fan the flames and whip their audiences into a frenzy.
** In a previous piece I discounted Scottish Presbyterian
attachment to William III and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. One exception
would be the Presbyterians of Ulster. For them William of the House of Orange
remains a living hero. For it was his victory over the Jacobites at the Boyne
in 1690 that secured their place in Ulster and thus they celebrate him to this
day. The Orange Orders are a Protestant freemasonry linked to ultra-British
nationalism and in some cases paramilitary violence. Paisley himself had a
rocky relationship with the mainstream Orange Lodges but he worked with some of
the other groups and was most certainly involved with some of the paramilitary
groups during the Troubles.
See also: