Blessed Charles I von Habsburg
April 2012 celebrated the 90th anniversary of the death of the Christian statesman and king, blessed Charles 1 von Habsburg. The motto of his life was „I strive always in all things to understand as clearly as possible and follow the will of God, and this of the most perfect way“.
When Pope John Paul II. declared Charles von Habsburg blessed on October 13th 2004, even the majority of Czech catholics had little idea who this man was. The confusion of history has had enormous effects and resulted in utter ignorance of one´s own country history, even of recent events. After Charles beatification new publications concerning his personality started to emerge in the Czech area, chiefly among non-Catholic sources. Unfortunately, the principle that history is an evolutionary process and the saying that everything „old“ is necessarily worse and less important than everything modern and new, has taken root among modern age catholics. After 1918, political forces distorted history to appease current political demands. School systems brought many to the attitude that to know one´s own history is good-for-nothing because the „new age“ is so exciting. This was not only a mistake but was used for political purposes. Those not interested in history are amenable to manipulation and revolution and are incapable of discernment.
The goal of this text is to bring to the reader the recognition that blessed Charles, a catholic, the King and a father of a family, faced the same enemy as we face today.
Unlike many of his contemporaries Charles identified this enemy and knew the means he might use in the struggle against it. He lived in times when everything we live in today was being constituted and put through by means of brutal force. Yet frequently we are not able to identify the gist of this agelong spiritual war.
Charles was born on December 17th, 1887 the first-born son of Archduke Otto von Habsburg and Marie-Joseph of the Saxon dynasty. The marriage wasn´t happy. The internal spiritual conflict between devote catholic Marie and liberal freethinker Otto was crucial in its impact on Charles´ life. His father was continuously lapsing into being an amoral rude wretch. He may have been a handsome man (he was called „handsome Otto“) but he had a morally bad nature. He had many concubines and wallowed in sexual exuberances. He frequently scorned his wife and ridiculed her publicly. His children, Charles and Maxmillian, grew up in devotion to their loving mother. Otto´s death was as tragic as his life. He became infected with syphilis which affected his throat, and he died a slow and painful death in seclusion on November 1st, 1906 at the age of 31, accompanied only by one of his concubines. For both the young Archdukes Otto was a striking example of how not to live and of the dangers of a wayward and godless life. Both brothers were handed the treasure of faith by their mother and Charles became a great man only because of her. Charles was given a versatile education. He had tutors but also attended the church grammar school that was part of the Irish-Scottish Benedictine cloister. Father Geggerle, Charles´ religion teacher, characterized him with the following words: „He was modest, truth-loving, studious and devote“. Even by then he had noticed so much that was crucially virtuous for a catholic and especially the monarch: Charles loved the TRUTH.
Charles and the times he lived in.
The zeitgeist of Charles´ times rationally headed into tragedy. During the whole 19th Century the dark rumbling of liberalism (moral and religious relativism) and its clones, socialism and nationalism, echoed throughout Europe. However, the gist of these ideologies was Lucipherian rebellion by which once Christian Europe was being led back to paganism by means of media manipulation of the masses. It was a constant struggle of lasting faith against the spiritual innovations of the French revolution that was brought into society by the elites. The majority of old nobility houses was spiritually bound to Enlightenment ideas and the emergence of a ravenous „new nobility“. Most of the nobles and the industrialists participated in the freemasons‘ secret societies and fought against the Church, directly or indirectly. But what was this „new nobility“? These were particular men and families, who gained social influence during the times of the Napoleonic wars. They gained this influence not because of moral qualities but due to their economic roles and by kowtowing to the courts and the Emperor. These families lent their money in order to save the state budget and achieved prominence in the area of industrial production. The Victorian century was on its way. These families were not benefactors out of a sense of love for the monarchs or for the people. Rather, they strove to achieve other goals. Their long-time goal was to take control over the political system by economic means, which had been gaining influence in the area of culture and politics. The first warfield was the state banking system followed by big projects in areas such as gun production, mineral mining, and agriculture production. Certainly the goal itself was disguised with philanthrophy, and therefore both the masses and the old nobility were satisfied too. For example we had the most dense railroads in the whole of Europe.
However, this new nobility was deliberately anti-Christian and it especially regarded the Catholic Church as its agelong enemy. The role of the Catholic state in monarchy and therefore also the character of the state was at stake in this struggle. Elitists knew that if they wanted to achieve revolutionary social change they would have to direct their influence to the education and upbringing of future generations. After a long period of state supervision and intrusion established during the governance of Joseph II (1765-1790) the Catholic Church was given back the right to church scholarship due to the concordat from 1855. Elizabeth Bavorian, the mother of the Emperor Franz Joseph I. and a devote catholic woman, for whom the liberals and the new nobility had deep hatred, had a fundamental influence on the concordat´s wording. Emperor Franz Joseph I. was not a man of such strong principles as his mother, although we have to acknowledge that from 1868 he was only a constitutional monarch and as a result his direct influence on contemporary political processes weakened considerably.
The influence of German-speaking liberals, who were not only native Germans, was heightened during the lost Austrian-Prussian war. It rose even more during the unification of the German states into the German empire (established on January 18th,1871) which, represented by the Hohenzollern dynasty, was of Protestant belief. Since that time the survival and independence of the historical-political unit known as the Danube monarchy was at stake. The dynasty was trying to save itself and its independence against continuously empowering pressures to create the one German Empire to absorb the countries of the Habsburgian states union. Therefore most of the ensuing political events were determined by give-and-take measures because the Habsburg-Lothringen house was fighting for the conservation of intellectual and spiritual heredity of its ancestors. The so-called Austro-Hungarian repayment, so much disliked by the intellectual elites of the Czech crown countries biased by national romantism, came out of this give-and-take process and by kowtowing to more and more powerful oligarchies. Of course, the political intent expressed in the slogan „divide and rule“ and the political method expressed in the proverb „two dogs fight for a bone and a third runs away with it“ was the real purpose. Also Elizabeth (Sisi), the emperor´s wife who was of liberal thought (and whose lifestyle was likely similar to the late English princess Diana), had greatly influenced the Austro-Hungarian repayment concept. Most governments of the time were of liberal thought. German and Hungarian liberals along with nationalists and socialists, backed by the might of industrial lobbies, not only refused to concede state rights to the Czech countries, but forced the Emperor not to use his right to be crowned as the Czech King. Franz Joseph I unsuccessfully tried to carry out his coronation during the period of conservative Charles Zigmund Hohenwart who was simultaneously prime minister and finance minister. Unfortunately, Hohenwart‘s government lasted only from February to October 1871 when the liberal government resumed power and the coronation was postponed indefinitely.
The Church-state relationship was influenced also by the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). Among other things it had stated the dogma of papal infallibility concerning matters of faith and morals. For liberals this became the pretext to continue the fight against the Church which resulted in the one-sided relegation of the concordat by the state in 1870. The Church has never approbated this relegation because of its one-sidedness and therefore lawlessness. The new nobility of bankers and industrialists, endowed with haloes of noble titles, had its own idea of the future. They strove to destroy the Habsburgian monarchy and to dissolve it into the liberal German Empire. This was the only way to establish the new European realm regardless of its state system – whether monarchy or republic. In case the Habsburgian monarchy wanted to defend its heritage including its bond to catholicism, this elite society would be ready to destroy it. They abhored the powerful Archdukes who did not support them. Although they were unable to change the succession system, they were powerful enough to isolate them politically and to kill them if necessary. That was the case with Ferdinand d´Este. He was a real threat to them and if the investigators had the opportunity to search for the assassins and their companions in the Serbian kingdom lands, the inquisition would lead them back to the Habsburgian state union. This part of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum inflicted on the Serbian kingdom became the igniter of the Great War (1914-1918). The request of the imperial inquisition board to inquire into the assassination of the throne successor and his wife in Serbia became the reason for the rejection of the ultimatum which resulted in the proclamation of non-belligerency, regional at the time. This was what the elites waited for and was what pope Pius X had in mind when he warned Emperor Franz Josef I against the response that would lead to war. It is useful to note that the revolutionary process used many useful idiots including the liberal intellectual elites from the Czech crown countries.
Alone against the revolution.
Of course the economical and political lobby groups knew who would be the heir to the Crown. They knew very well that the less informed he was, the better they would be. They knew that only the rumbling of weapons would establish the best conditions for them to change the world. Every important change has to be vindicated morally and only in a real crisis is it best to create the demand for revolutionary changes which can be easily vindicated to the masses. Ferdinand d´Este was not their man due of this reason. Although he was versed politically, he had been trained for many years to accept the role of monarch. He had his own intelligence service and military bureau. His assassination was also a preventive action because he knew who was the enemy and where it was hiding. Furthermore, he was a catholic and a man of principles, an advocate of traditions, including faith and family. But from the elitists´ point of view he was irrational.
The Great War (1914-1918) was not a common war. Above all it was a revolution that aimed to change the social order – and it succeeded. The Emperor Charles was fully aware of this due to the information he obtained from his uncle Ferdinand. This was the reason why after ascending the throne Charles tried to make peace with his wife´s brothers who had fought on the opposing side. Because of this act he was being accused of high treason and of weakness by liberals, socialists and nationalists for many years. For them, an interest in peace would complicate revolutionary processes. Hence they accused Charles of many bad things and even suppressed the memory of him, giving truth to the saying that history is written by the victors. Only the old, unfit and purportedly guilty-of-everything Emperor should remain in the nation´s memory. Charles negotiated with the German Emperor Wilhelm II to seek peace together, since the goal of this war was to destroy the European legacy, including the monarchies as hitherto known. Charles worried about war casaulties due to new technologies. He realised that the war was a preliminary to the political regimes that were substantively genocidal. It was well known that the socialists, influenced by Marxistic doctrine, were preparing a radical historical takeover and that they tried to start the world revolution in Europe immediately after the end of the war. Unfortunatelly, nobody listened to Charles. Revolutionary reversal took place and we are its children and heirs. It is logical that the same revolutionary elites who ignited the war and the destruction of the Habsburgian monarchy visited Charles while he was living in exile. These were envoys of the masonery lodges and they offered Charles to become the head of some „proto-European union“. His reply was unambiguous: „I have obtained my crown from God, I do not want to obtain it from the devil.“ Charles always had the virtue of love for the truth and of being devoted to it. Charles, Emperor and King, died in exile on the island of Madeira on 1st April 1922.
Not only catholics should remember blessed Charles. The revolution he was trying to stop brought such historically bad results, as we have found out during the past several decades. Charles was one of few individuals who firmly resisted the active desire of a small powerful group trying to establish the new slavery system which disguises itself even in our times. Unfortunately, nowadays we live in a period of relative triumph by those forces and therefore it is time to understand and admit what really happened.
Let us rid ourselves of the media world image promoting a reality amenable to the oligarchs´ ideas. They can enslave nations only when they have them on their side, only if we are prepared to believe in pagan deities of various figures and faces, returning us back to the dark slavery of antiquity – to the times of godlike Caesers, rather than the times of Catholic monarchs and dukes supporting the supreme reign of God.
First and foremost, Charles was a monarch of true catholic faith. He knew pope Pius X and he shared his anti-liberal and therefore also anti-revolutionary view not only of the state but also of the catholic faith itself. Unlike his ancestor Franz Joseph I he was uncompromising concerning basic principles. He is not to be compared with the majority of today´s politicians who are indifferent either to our country´s future or to the welfare of our children and grandchildren. Such people would sell us to anybody to get a luxury lifestyle and due to their cowardice they would even vindicate it as being morally right. Remember that evil always presents itself as good, using sublime terms such as truth, love, liberty, and human rights.
Blessed Charles is an ideal for every patriot who understands the foolishness of being proud of any lie just because it is marked „made in Czech“, „made in EU“ or „made in USA“. We should be proud only of something that is right because only the truth is good. Mythology about oneself or about other people is the means by which revolution rules the masses. Charles is an example for everyone who understands the enemy we are fighting against. The enemy is everything, either in us or outside us, marked with the Lucipherian „non serviam“ (I will not serve) brand. Who is to be served? The One, who is the first cause and the final destination of all beings, who revealed Himself in history, and those who are the heirs of His self-revelation.
Like blessed Charles, we should also realize that the struggle is worth fighting regardless of how hopelessly the struggle may seem because, as the Bible says: „Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me“. The climax of Charles´ struggle was the deliberate sacrifice of his life for the nations he was given to rule. He devoted his slow dying to the Most Holy Heart of Christ the King and he identified himself with His cross. By this he showed the heroic faith of the combatant. He knew whom he was believing, in contrast to many modern catholics who cooperate with the world and the zeitgeist. He was the father of eight children and he regarded the family as participation in the Creator´s work. His wife, Empress Zita, was a lady. This was not because of her social status but because of her awareness of being the woman-mother who always stands alongside her husband irrespective of whether the weather is sunny or drizzly. She remained devoted to her husband even after his death. She brought up all their children and never wanted any other man than Charles. She never put away her black suit although she was only thirty at the time of her husband´s death and pregnant with her eighth baby. Although Charles and Zita, after all the years of revolutionary lies and servile bluntness, seem like taillights of one era, nevertheless every light is apparent in the distance and encourages us to endeavour and hope. In contrast with other persons of the past who lived for more mundane than heavenly things, Charles´ and Zita´s sacrifice is the reason why both will not remain forgotten.
Monarchist association MONOS
Link to the article in Czech