The driving force of history is the interaction and clash of civilizations. Looking at the history of Western civilization on a larger scale, we can find one leitmotiv – the clash of the West with an invader from the East.
The “Father of History” Herodotus (484-425 BC), when describing the Greek and Persian wars, was the first to recognize that it was a wider clash between fundamentally different political cultures. It was a clash between freedom of the peoples and tyranny of collectivism. The Greeks fought not only for their city-states, but for the future of Western civilization. A century later, Alexander the Great counterattacked, extending Western civilization to Central Asia and border of India. Alexander’s mission was continued by the Roman Empire, which throughout its history fought the existential struggle against the reborn Persian Empire of Parthia. With the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, Western civilization gained a common foundation for a unifying cultural space that later included whole of Europe. Meanwhile, the expansion of Islamic civilization was a continuation of the clash between the West and the East, which turned history in a direction unfavourable to the West. The decisive battle at Poitiers (732), the Spanish Reconquista (8th-15th centuries), the heroic resistance of the Order of Malta (1565) and the battle at Vienna (1683) led by King John III Sobieski of Poland-Lithuania were decisive moments in history that allowed Western civilization to survive in its homeland, Europe, while the influence of Western culture in the East almost completely disappeared with the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th century. In all these battles, Europeans were in a numerical minority, but they were strengthened by a sense of the uniqueness of their cultural ideals as opposed to an value system of the invader. What are the ideals of modern so-called “European” politicians? Would they be willing to sacrifice some of their comfort for it, not to mention their lives, as our ancestors were able to do? The idea that our future will be secured not by values but by a superiority of technological capabilities (which Westerners have already largely lost) is naive and has no precedent in history.
This ancient struggle between West and East has also taken place at our borders. The attacks on Europe by the Mongol and later Muscovite civilizations have always been accompanied by a clash of fundamental values: European free and rooted farmers’ cultures against the eastern nomads, led by a mission to expand their borders as far as possible. The seemingly ethnically close Slavic and Christian nation behind Zilupe is, in fact, another civilization that does not recognize the value of the individual, the rule of law, or the principle of national self-determination. Historically, these have been the Baltic nations that have taken the front line against the invader from this alien Muscovite civilization, initially in union with the Germans in the Livonian Confederation and with the Poles in the Polish-Lithuanian superpower. In the 20th century, this struggle transformed into a war against Bolshevik collectivism, which Russia used as a new weapon in its ancient conflict with Western civilization. The war against Bolshevism in the Baltics, Poland’s miraculous victory near Warsaw in 1920, legionnaires’ battles in World War II, the national guerrilla war until the second half of the 1950s, and later the national resistance movement that eventually helped destroy the USSR from within – our sacred struggle has never stopped!
In the 21st century, it is neo-Marxism that, by breaking down the borders of Western countries and destroying the fundamental values of Western culture, is destroying our civilization from within. Meanwhile, non-Western civilizations are cultivating their cultural self-confidence and economic potential in an effort to reduce the influence of Western civilization. In this struggle, great powers such as Russia are using immigration as a hybrid weapon against the West.
The idea of geopolitical dominance of Russian civilization is called Eurasianism. The Eurasian project means its intrusion into Europe, so the nations of Europe must first be weakened, divided, and transformed into vulnerable masses. Nation states have always been an obstacle to imperialism. The ideological subversion of neo-Marxism, which weakens Europe’s immune system – the will and ability of its nations to defend itself – paves the way for Russia’s Eurasian imperialism. This is the new “icebreaker” in Russia’s strategy towards Europe. Russia promotes immigration both by supporting the UN Migration Pact and by facilitating the flow of refugees from Syria through its military actions and by creating new immigration routes that lead to the rest of Europe via Norway or Latvia’s eastern border. The multicultural ideas of neo-Marxism are also useful for the Russian “compatriot policy” in the former USSR countries. According to the doctrine of the Russian political scientist Sergei Karaganov, Russia pursues its interests in these countries with the help of Russian-speaking communities, using them as levers of influence on economic and political issues. Russia is trying to keep these communities self-sufficient by promoting bilingualism. This, in turn, can be ensured through the naivety of the Western leftist liberals over the question of “minority rights”. This paves the way for the restoration of the Russian Empire with the hands of various European Commissioners. Meanwhile, Russia itself remains a prison of nations, which in its despotic sphere of influence retains neighboring countries, such as Belarus and Armenia, while at the same time russifying innumerable ethnic groups internally. Almost al traces of the Baltic nations in Russia, including the twenty thousand Latgalians who remained beyond the borders of Latvia after the War of Independence, have disappeared. It shows how cruel the longest struggle of our nation is – the expulsion and assimilation of the Balts from their lands for almost a millennium.
Thus, Russia’s expansionist agenda includes the weakening and disintegration of Europe with the help of ideology of neo-Marxism, on the one hand, and strong state power, on the other, the cult of the personality of its leader, the strengthening of the identity of the “compatriots” diaspora and their willingness to use violence to achieve their goals.
An attack from the outside is a consequence of the internal weakness of civilization. This has happened to countless other cultures in human history. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is an example of an aggressor entering the sphere of Western civilization from outside, taking advantage of Europe’s weakness. The predictions of the American political scientist Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) are coming true – a clash of civilizations is happening, which means conflicts on the borders of civilizations. However, if this border can be defined in Eastern Europe, then in Western Europe, as a result of mass immigration, this border has been blurred, and a collision is taking place on the streets of cities.
Radical islamists see all “infidel” territories as a war zone and all secular governments as illegitimate. Western neo-Marxists refuse to acknowledge that the countless acts of terrorism and attempted acts of terrorism by members of one religion constitute a guerrilla war against Western civilization. At the forefront of this unilaterally declared war is the “Islamic State”, a alternative of model of globalism. Islam does not, in principle, accept national borders. Its ideal has always been the caliphate, a global power in which the religious and secular spheres are inseparable. From the 20th century onwards, there was a bloody struggle in the Islamic world between Arab nationalists who wanted to rule in nation-states like Europe and Islamists who saw their mission as liberation from Western-imposed political models and the creation of a caliphate. Led by Islamist militants, the Middle East is now moving away from Western influence and the Westphalian nation-state system – the collapse of the post-colonial Arab states is a prelude to what can be expected in a multicultural Western Europe.
Islam is expanding where it does not face any kind of spiritual resistance. Neo-Marxism, which can only offer spiritual and social chaos, makes Europe incapable of assimilating other cultures. The new generation of Muslims happily rejects the atomized Western consumer society with its pseudo-values and go to war in the ranks of the “Islamic State”. Western nations must overcome neo-Marxism before it turns into the ruins of Western cultures on which other civilizations will build their future! Samuel Huntington has written that it is the responsibility of Western leaders not to seek to transform other civilizations, but to protect and restore the unique qualities of Western civilization. In other words, the West must not try to teach Muslims the principles of democracy with its bombers, but solve the moral crisis in their own countries.
Left liberalism, or neo-Marxism, is blind – it is a destructive force that, with slogans for a better future, destroys the structures of Western civilization, paving the way for the dominance of Eastern despotism.
Our answer – regeneration of the West! This is possible if the West not only preserves classical values, but also as a mighty tree takes its roots deeper in the source of these values. This primary source – Indo-European culture – is best preserved in the Baltic nations.
 Viktor Suvorov, a Russian writer and former USSR military intelligence officer, called Nazi Germany an “icebreaker” used by the USSR to “liberate” and take control of Europe.
 UN Migration Pact declares all immigrants desirable and admittable in any country and intends censorship for the critique of immigration.
 In 2015, more British Muslims fought in ISIS than in the British Armed Forces: Murray, Douglas. The Strange death of Europe, Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017., P. 313
 Hantingtons, Semjuels. Civilizāciju sadursme. Pasaules kārtības pārveide. Rīga, Jumava, 2012., P. 318