The US State Department’s Ongoing Unholy War Against Christian Government in Hungary
Does the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the ability to do so in a way that honors the God of the Bible? Do we, as citizens of a country founded upon such values, see those rights as ones to be upheld in the international world, especially ones we have tied our fortunes to via NATO membership? “For the Founders, the pursuit of happiness was the individual and unalienable right to pursue a life lived in harmony with the ‘law of nature and of nature’s God’ and the obligation of government to protect man’s right to engage in that pursuit.”
What is the role of foreign policy with regard to protecting man’s collective right to living in harmony with this Law of Nature and Nature’s God? Perhaps it is duty enough to see to this pursuit in the activities of the people of our own country, however, our representatives have seen to direct the efforts of the Executive Branch to be quite involved in the affairs of other nations beyond their machinations directed at us. Perhaps these involvements have been for the promotion of the morality and ethics of “Nature and Nature’s God” as revealed in Christian Scripture. Then again, perhaps not.
The stance of the United States government has shown a distinctly anti-Christian bias in recent history, and this continues specifically in the actions taken to disrupt the current government of Hungary. The Prime Minister of Hungary is Viktor Orban, a member of the Calvinist Hungarian Reformed Church, and as a result of a serious faith he has sought to govern in a distinctly Hungarian Christian way. He sees the continuation of the Christian and uniquely Hungarian way of life of massive import. This boldness to work specifically for the benefit of the Hungarian citizens in a way that reflects a Christian morality and ethic has put him in the crosshairs of the world’s liberal elite. Orban is self-admittedly not a liberal, and so the world’s biggest champion of liberalism, the United States, seems ever-ready to battle him.
Orban, who has served in two distinct periods — from 1998 to 2002, and then from 2010 to the present — has been a vocal critic of both the Obama and Biden administrations. He has also shrunk Hungarian inflation, the domestic fiscal deficit, and overseen the joining of NATO. He has vehemently opposed Hungary being a destination for migrants in the “European Migrant Crisis”, writing “Europe is not being pressured by a ‘refugee problem’ or a ‘refugee situation,’” he wrote in an op-ed for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “Rather, the continent is under threat of an ever-growing modern exodus.” He continued, “The protection of our borders is the first and most important question,” Orbán said in his piece for the conservative daily. “There is no point in discussing any other issue until the flood has been halted.” Then, his argument reaches its climax, “We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim…Or is it not worrying that Europe’s Christian culture is already barely able to maintain its own set of Christian values?”
These values Orban relates are those that informed the founding of the United States. Life lived in harmony with God…a harmony which has necessary distinctions based upon peoples and geography. In support of such, and for the continuation of such, Orban has argued for many things that are in contrast to the modern liberal point of view.
He has voiced a robust critique of Liberal Democracy — openly lambasting this model of governance, particularly for what he perceives as its inability to maintain stability and ensure the prosperity of the specific nation. In a seminal speech in 2014, he argued that the era of liberal democracies is over, asserting that they cannot remain globally competitive. Perhaps his most direct admission came during a speech in 2014, when Orban explicitly advocated for an “illiberal state” model. He cited Singapore, China, India, Turkey, and Russia as examples of successful nations that are not liberal democracies, suggesting that this model could better serve Hungary’s interests in remaining uniquely Christian and Hungarian, and consequently Orban’s speeches and policies often prioritize nationalist values and are anti-globalist.
A central tenet of Orban’s political philosophy is a strong stance against immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries. He has framed this stance as a defense of Europe’s Christian culture and Hungarian national identity, rejecting the multiculturalism often associated with liberal political philosophies.
Orban’s government has taken steps to exert control over the judiciary and media, actions typically at odds with liberal democratic principles that emphasize the separation of powers and a free press. These measures have been criticized by various international observers as undermining democratic institutions and freedoms in Hungary, though the people don’t seem to mind the order and prosperity. While not strictly a measure of liberal vs. illiberal philosophy, Orban’s economic policies have also veered towards state intervention and protectionism, at times conflicting with the free-market principles championed by many liberal democracies.
All of this shows a desire for Orban to prioritize both the people of Hungary over the interest of non-Hungarians, and their way of life so as to not become part of the endless global suburb of liberal America.
This, understandably, has angered those whose lives, philosophy and livelihoods are dependent on the ever-growing globalist cosmopolitanism. This cosmopolitanism, as I have argued in an earlier article, stands opposed to distinctions of place, of culture, and of virtue directed at the godly harmonious living so championed in the US founding. But it stands aligned with that which provides cheap labor, endless customers, a freedom from morality, and a sea of voters loyal to the Democratic Party. If there are examples of bastions of flourishing that stand athwart of this cosmopolitan stew, they cannot be allowed to distract the people here who might discover there is a better way.
How can these distractions be eliminated? The ability to foment color revolutions in smaller nations where vast dollars, endless NGOs, and a cadre of CIA-trained politicians is one the US has relied upon. To be sure, it would make many problems go away if suddenly the people of Hungary could be convinced that Orban needed to go. However, Hungary, unlike Georgia, unlike Ukraine, is a member of NATO. A more delicate touch of election interference, a gameplan perfected here domestically, would be preferred to the outright bludgeoning of riots and violence that we saw in Kiev in 2014. Who would be the players that might enact that strategy?
Enter Peter Magyar. Magyar is a former operative within both Fidesz (the ruling party) and the national government. But now he is running against the popular Orban, and led a massive demonstration against the Prime Minister last weekend. Hungarian sources report that Magyar had a meeting with David Pressman’s aides (Pressman is the US Ambassador to Hungary), which relayed the desire for the US to support an opposition candidate.
UK news outlet The Guardian reported that “Tens of thousands of Hungarians protested against the country’s leadership on Saturday in one of the biggest demonstrations in years, organised by a former government insider who has shaken up Hungary’s political landscape.” Magyar spoke of “government corruption” in the Orban administration. The timing is interesting, and possibly ripe for foreign intervention, as “Hungary’s president, Katalin Novák, resigned after it emerged that she had pardoned a man convicted of helping cover up a sexual abuse case at a children’s home.”
Péter Magyar also spoke ironically in Spinoza (a famous restaurant in Budapest) about the fact that he was the first to give an interview on Márton Gulyás’ program Partizán, saying that “I managed to select the headquarters of the CIA in Budapest, as I later found out.”
Magyar was asked whether he met with Ambassador Pressman. He thought a bit, then answered, “Not with David Pressman personally”, but he immediately added that “a lot of people are looking for me through intermediaries”. Pressman obviously approached him indirectly. Soon after, Magyar spoke about “the appearance that someone wants to replace the government with foreign help must be avoided.”
The US opposition has been brewing for a while. In February, it was reported that Biden operatives had united with George Soros to undermine Orban. $320,000 of US taxpayer funds were given to Okatars Foundation and Mertek Media Monitor to distribute to multiple media outlets critical of Orban.
Andras Laszlo (@laszloan on X) reported January 27th:
Left-wing NGOs announce which Hungarian media outlets will receive direct financing from the US Embassy. More than a DOZEN, a total of 15 media will receive US taxpayer money, approximately $ 310,000. The announcement suggests that this is merely the first round of financing. It is also made clear that it was the US Embassy that approved the winners. All of them are hostile to the conservative gov of PM Orbán. Important context: Hungary has European & local elections in June. At the 2022 general elections leftist political organizations received about USD 10 MILLION from anonymous sources in the US & Switzerland. That blew up into a huge and still enduring foreign interference scandal, but it seems that this time the financing of left-wing media is done by the US government. Below is the official announcement with the seal of the US State Department and the list of winners.
Not only is the US Government actively working against a conservative Christian government of a NATO ally, but it is enlisting the decision-making authority of non-US citizens.
In March, the aforementioned US Ambassador David Pressman gave a heated speech denouncing the Orban government, at the George Soros-founded and funded Central European University. He railed against measures Orban has enacted to combat foreign influence, including the “Defense of Sovereignty Act” and the never-ending battle with Soros. Pressman was wholly partisan in his comments, a stance quite odd for an Ambassador. Tom Olohon reported on March 15th that “Pressman’s claims come against the backdrop of the Soros-funded Ökotárs Foundation and media watchdog Mérték Media Monitor preparing a second round of taxpayer-funded grants to Hungarian media outlets. This round of the infamous grant program had a Feb. 29 deadline. Like Pressman, these Soros-funded organizations use the phrase ‘independent media’ to describe the leftist media outlets they choose to shower money on.”
Covered in the hand-waving of environmentalism and civil society support, Ökotárs plays a controversial role in Hungarian politics, assuredly serving foreign interests that aim to dilute Hungary’s sovereignty and traditional values. This Ökotárs Foundation, financed substantially by the Norway Grants and Soros, positions itself as a champion of civil society and environmentalism. However, a closer examination reveals a different narrative. The foundation’s activities, including grant-making to smaller NGOs and advocating for liberal causes, align suspiciously with broader European liberal agendas, often contradicting Hungary’s governmental policies. Such alignment raises critical questions about the true beneficiaries of their work and whether their activities serve as a conduit for foreign influence, undermining the democratically elected government of Viktor Orbán.
Critics argue that Ökotárs operate under the guise of neutrality and philanthropy while engaging in politically motivated actions. These actions are not just independent civil initiatives but are strategically aligned to destabilize national policies that prioritize Hungary’s sovereignty and cultural integrity. The foundation’s support for projects that ostensibly challenge traditional values or promote liberal immigration policies is viewed as an affront to Hungary’s autonomy and an attempt to erode the social fabric that unites Hungarians.
Moreover, the controversy surrounding the Ökotárs Foundation extends to the realm of transparency and accountability. Observers criticize the opaque nature of their international funding… The fear is not only that foreign funds are influencing Hungarian politics but that they do so in a manner that escapes thorough scrutiny by Hungarian citizens and their representatives. This situation, they argue, constitutes a direct challenge to democratic governance, allowing external entities to shape Hungary’s policy landscape through financial influence.
In addition to Ökotárs, the NGO Mérték Media Monitor’s activities can be seen as part of a broader trend where certain media watchdog organizations, ostensibly dedicated to promoting media freedom and pluralism, engage in practices that could undermine national sovereignty and the democratically elected government’s mandate. Mérték’s vocal opposition to the media policies of Viktor Orbán’s administration reflects a biased interpretation of media freedom, one that aligns more closely with liberal and left-leaning ideologies than with an objective standard of journalistic independence. Mérték’s analyses and critiques disproportionately focus on the government’s consolidation of media, while potentially neglecting or underemphasizing the bias and inaccuracies prevalent in opposition-aligned media outlets. Such a stance compromises the organization’s neutrality and diminishes its credibility as a fair arbiter of media standards.
Moreover, Mérték Media Monitor’s emphasis on international collaboration and reliance on funding from sources outside of Hungary is indicative of an agenda that prioritizes external interests over national concerns. Critics on the right might view this as a form of neo-colonialism, where foreign entities, through their financial and ideological support of organizations like Mérték, exert undue influence on Hungary’s domestic affairs, particularly in shaping its media landscape. What is the ultimate loyalty of such watchdogs: are they serving the interests of a global liberal order rather than fostering a truly diverse and pluralistic media environment that respects Hungary’s cultural and political sovereignty? Thus, while the mission to safeguard media freedom is noble, the methods and motivations of Mérték Media Monitor, are contributing to polarization rather than bridging the informational divides within Hungarian society.
The State Department is completely off the rails, conducting foreign policy operations against the interests of the Founders and the citizens of the United States, the majority of which are Christian. Your tax dollars are actively seeking the demise of a Christian leader who has brought prosperity to his people and who has not bowed to the amoral demands of a leftist zeitgeist championed by the culturally-colonizing US State Department. Is this, Christian, what you want? Is this good? Does this bring honor to Christ? The answer is clearly, no.
There is no other interpretation of these actions than that the US government is actively seeking to subvert self-identifying Christian governments and their leaders. The reasoning is simple: the US government has been taken over by philosophical liberals who believe the leftist lie – that the materialist assumptions of reality and the radical equality of the people, eliminating distinctions of sex/gender, preference and giftedness, and the goal of emancipation from all bonds not chosen – are the goals of a hegemonic governing construct. This construct must be recognized and defeated, even if it means the institutions that many of us grew up cherishing must be wiped away. Sadly, the reality is that the elites, the ruling class of the modern United States hates and seeks the destruction of Biblical Christianity. And this leaves us with the chilling observation and question:
Viktor Orban has thus far protected his people. Are your leaders protecting you?
Image Credit: Unsplash
There are two issues to consider here. First, what is Orbán associating with Christianity with his Christian way of ruling Hungary. Second, is there a rhetoric inflation regarding the U.S. government’s alleged hostility toward Christianity.
When we compare the religious demographics of Hungary of the years 2011 and 2022, we see a dramatic change of events. Whereas the majority of Hungarians identified themselves as Christians in 2011, not so in 2022. Only around 40% of Hungarians now identify themselves as Christian. The Calvinists went from around 16% of the population in 2011 to around 9% in 2022. So what we are celebrating here is the Christian rule over a nation where the majority of the people in the nation are not Christians.
Second, we need to look at the direction Orbán is taking the nation. We should note that with his immigration policies especially regarding nations from Asia and Africa, Orbán said the following:
‘we are willing to mix with one another, but we do not want to become mixed race‘
What does that statement associate with Christianity? What is being associated with Christianity when a Christian leader refuses to help those in need because of how different those in need are different from people of one’s own nation? What Christian values are being followed there?
It is known that Orbán has described Hungary as becoming an ‘illiberal state.’ This includes the government taking control of some public institutions and attacking the rights of minorities. In addition, Orbán seems to be leading Hungary in the same direction that Erdogan is taking Turkey and Putin has taken Russia. In fact Orbán opposes sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Does that reflect well on Christianity?
Here it seems that Dodson is congratulating Orbán for taking Hungary in a nation first direction–similar to what some American right-wing groups want to do and we should also remember when Germany took that same direction. And the question becomes, what is being associated with Christianity there? What is associated with Orbán’s lack of objection to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? Is it Christian to only be concerned and involved when an aggressor threatens one’s own borders? Is that what history has taught us to do? Is that even being practical? Was Great Britain wrong to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland?
As for the rhetoric inflation, I faced another kind of inflation when I taught Computer Science, Information Technology, and some Math classes. That inflation was grade inflation. And Administration, to various levels, put pressure on college professors and instructors to give better grades for lesser work in order to control attrition. It is a way of accommodating the decline in academics at the high school level.
Only the above rhetoric inflation is not meant to accommodate weakness, but too manipulate people with fear, fury, and even flattery. We saw this rhetoric inflation in the article, The War On Christianity, where disagreements was called hostility and allowing people to make alternative choices contrary to what Christian choices offered aggression. In other words, any objection to what some people’s Christian domination mandated was called a war on Christianity.
Only here, with reliance on questionable sources, like MRC News Busters (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsbusters/) about alleged Soros involvement and some out of date statistics, Dodson claims that the Biden Administration is fighting a political war against a Christian government. But Dodson doesn’t account for the change in Hungary’s religious demographics before he praises Orbán’s policies and approach. In fact, Dodson makes a false claim about America and its religious demographics. For all of the indications show that Biden’s objections to Orbán’s policies first have to do with NATO and second with Orbán’s turning away from democratic principles. Are those democratic principles at odds with Christianity? If so, again, what associations is Dodson making with Christianity? And even on a practical level, should we only concern ourselves with a tyrant who possibly has imperial delusions dancing in his head when that tyrant is on our own borders?
Again, the above rhetoric inflation is meant to manipulate people. Look at the direction which that manipulation is pointing too. It’s pointing to Putin and Russia as example to emulate. And so the final question becomes why are those who are manipulating others with such rhetoric choosing the direction they are choosing?
Oh, for pity’s sake. You’re a jerk, Day.
Ryan,
The only way you seem to be able to express your anger toward me is to sin with words. You need to find other ways to express that anger.
This is a thought-provoking and timely piece that highlights the complexities of the relationship between religion and government. The author’s analysis of the US State Department’s actions presents a powerful argument against the manipulation of religious beliefs for political gain. A must-read for anyone interested in the current global political landscape.”