Western civilization is based on Indo-European culture that interprets the world hierarchically. On a religious level, it is an idea of God that is symbolically associated to heaven (Order) as opposed to earth or underworld (primeval Chaos). This religious hierarchy served as the basis for the organization of Indo-European societies by analogy with the human body, in which the mind rules over vitality and flesh – there were estates of Priests, Warriors and Producers. Priests were responsible for the community’s relationship with God, warrior societies lived by their own internal laws of honour and loyalty and producers, consisting of farmers, stockbreeders, and artisans, were responsible for the economic life of the community. As the Indo-European tribes expanded, they introduced this tripartite hierarchy everywhere. Where the invading tribes were in the minority in relation to the subjugated population, such as India or Sparta, a strict system of castes developed, with the conquered at the lowest level of the hierarchy. Meanwhile, in the lands of the Baltic tribes, this hierarchy was much more flexible and did not serve as a means of oppressing other ethnic groups. This was based not only on the fact that the land was wilder and less populated than elsewhere in Europe, but also on archaeological and genetic indications that Indo-European / Baltic culture did not come here from the outside but evolved from Stone Age cultures on the ground. 
Indo-Europeans are settled peoples – their political system has historically been characterized by organization around the fatherland. As a settled culture, Indo-Europeans are characterized by a strong ethnic consciousness, which can also be deduced from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language and various testimonies from folklore. Not only social relations, but also religion was interpreted as an extended family relationship, in which the dominant line was the Father’s line – the Indo-European God is not an abstract metaphysical principle, but the Father. Within the framework of this relationship, monogamous family relationships, a sense of private property and the above-mentioned hierarchy developed.
Closely related to ethnic consciousness, Indo-European societies also developed primitive democracy. When the offspring of the first Indo-European families formed their own family households, this original family was branched into kins, but as their numbers expanded, they grew into tribes after several generations. The tribe was the basis of the first states, whose “constitution” was based on the decisions of the heads of families. At a time when tribes were at war with neighbouring tribes, many branches of the tribe gathered and chose the most courageous and capable warrior from the heads of their families – so the classical aristocracy, or the rule of the best grew out of the primitive democracy. Thus, the ruler came from the tribe itself and, to be able to defend its interests, as a sovereign did not submit to the other estates. Indo-European democracy was fostered by a sense of personal freedom that grew out of the settled lifestyle, a freedom that is organically linked to the common good of the people. This distinguishes Indo-European cultures from Eastern cultures, where the individual has no political significance.
Our civilization has developed in at least two major historical cycles, forming a spiral of development in which these three basic elements of Indo-European culture have been consolidated. The first stage was the classical Western, or Greco-Roman civilization, which perfected the democratic idea by creating a classical democracy in 5th century B.C., in which every citizen could participate in national decision-making through direct voting. However, the Greek world itself was politically divided and almost self-destructed in their mutual wars. The Roman Empire served as a stabilizing factor and a transition to Christian Western civilization, developing the military, administrative, and philosophical traditions of the Roman Empire, as well as consolidating the values of natural law, the rule of law, and the monogamous family model as the backbone of Western culture. In the economic sphere, the merit of Christian civilization was the improvement of the tripartite hierarchy through the Corporative, or guild economic system based on group rights and representation. At the top of this hierarchy was the monarch, who was originally also the representative of his tribe.
This natural social evolution was interrupted by the crisis of the monarchy and the liberation of economic interests from responsibility for the common good of society. An ideological struggle broke out, the symbolic beginning of which was the French Revolution. The ideological struggle turned into destructive wars between 1914 and 1945, with Europeans, like the ancient Greeks, losing their global influence. Meanwhile, because of ideological subversion, the United States is also beginning to lose the global dominance it had gained since 1945, while revanchism from non-Western civilizations has intensified. From the loss of global influence to loss of influence in their own lands, a downfall that lasted for almost five centuries in classical Western civilization, is happening now before our eyes. Marxist attacks on all kinds of hierarchies – ideas of state and nation, the family, traditional religion, and private property – is an attack on the foundations of Western civilization! The result is the erosion of the values of Western civilization, which threatens to lead to the complete collapse of Western society and its subsequent inclusion in the spheres of influence of other civilizations already during our generation!
But our nation has a special mission – to start a new stage of Western civilization! Latvian philosopher Pauls Jurevičs (1891-1981) has written: “The young nations are the places in European culture from which, perhaps, the restoration could begin of that life, the search for a way out of the labyrinth or dead end where this culture has now entered”. We are one of these young nations living in the vast region between Germany and Russia. Strengthening our identities is not just for ourselves – it is the path to a rebirth of the West. Jurevičs especially emphasized that Latvians have the vitality of a new culture, a sense of justice and idealism, which distinguishes us from the old cultures of Western Europe. Of course, a lot has changed over the century. Under the influence of mass culture, we are rapidly “aging” and losing our uniqueness in our efforts to keep up with Western “modernity”. But we should always return to the idea of our own interests and mission. However, this mission cannot be accomplished on our own. Our mission is the mission of the Baltic nations, which can be accomplished together with the Lithuanian brothers.
Pan-Baltism is a desire for the original ideal community – it is a creative and culturally developing force that, by connecting the past with the future, has enormous potential. The idea of pan-Baltism, although almost completely forgotten nowadays, was once born together with Latvian nationalism. Atis Kronvalds (1837-1875) already in the middle of the 19th century advocated patriotism, “which extends beyond all tribes of the Latvian people: over the people of Kurzeme, Vidzeme, the Inflanty and the Lithuania”. He writes: “Our fatherland does not go as far as today’s Latvians live. Our fatherland is the whole expanse of land that has already been sprinkled with sweat and blood of our fathers before it was later broken into small pieces.” For him Lithuanians were the same continuation of the Latvian people as, for example, Latgalians. The poet Rainis wrote: “These tiny tribes come from a great mother! Those Lithuanians, the Samogatians, those far-flung Prussians, – These are relatives to the Curonians, Latvians, Zemgals, These tribes at the upper and lower end, These are regiments for the great mother.” The ideas of pan-Baltism were expressed by the Lithuanian political activist Jonas Šļiūpas (1861-1944), who saw the project of the Latvian-Lithuanian state union as the core of the Northern Confederation.  We should admit that in 1918 the original goals of our nationalism were only partially fulfilled! The Latvian historian and nationalist activist Jūlijs Bračs (1909-1984), who led the organization of the Latvian-Lithuanian unity in the first phase of Latvia’s independence and later in exile, was also aware of this.
Unfortunately, in the first phase of independence, the ideas of pan-Baltism did not gain support in political circles, which was one of the main reasons for the subsequent loss of independence. It must be understood that the unification of Latvia and Lithuania is important for geopolitical security. There are two constant geopolitical factors in our history for at least a thousand years – 1) constant pressure from the Eastern power; 2) the need to form alliances with stronger countries to prevent the subjugation of our land. Already during the Slavic expansion, starting from the 5th century, Balts lost most of their territory. Beginning in the 13th century, Baltic tribes walked two paths of unification to resist the threat from the east. The tribes closer to the shores of the Baltic Sea were drawn into conflict with the German invaders, with some of the tribes choosing the path of cooperation with the Germans and establishing the Livonian Confederation. We need to look at this period objectively. The Livonian Confederation was the basis of Latvian ethnogenesis and a way to preserve its living forces at that time. In 1502, during the Battle of Smolin under the command of Master Plettenberg, Livonian army with Latvian and Estonian troops stopped the expansion of Muscovy in Europe – thus the Latvians avoided the fate of other Eastern Baltic peoples that remained beyond the borders of Zilupe. Lithuania’s path of development was different, as it had time to unite under the leadership of its rulers, becoming a European superpower. Lithuania’s historical role cannot be overestimated – by expelling the Mongols from Kiev in 1363, it protected the Ruthenian people, or modern Ukrainians and Belarusians, from assimilation in Mongol-ruled Russia. However, Lithuania alone was not able to face all the threats, and the Polish-Lithuanian Federation was formed, which was a significant geopolitical player from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This federation protected the entire Western civilization both against the hordes of Muscovy and from the Turks.
However, in both Livonia and the Polish-Lithuanian federation, the Baltic peoples lost their influence in the long run. Their situation deteriorated especially after these territories became part of the Russian Empire. The lessons of these eras say that countries based on ethnic compromise are not sustainable. If history had developed differently, Lithuanian kings would have included in their country the Baltic tribes living in the territory of modern Latvia, creating a strong superpower that would ensure both the geopolitical security and ethnic interests of the Baltic nations. However, the creation of such a state was not possible at that time.
When the independent states of Lithuania and Latvia were established in 1918, General Pēteris Radziņš (1880-1930), the leader of the battles in the War of Independence, had an excellent understanding of the geopolitical aspect of Pan-Baltism. He wrote: “The Latvian-Lithuanian union would constitute a rather significant political force – a total of about 5 million inhabitants and a large area. For every international challenge, this power would be felt and other countries would count on it much more than they do now.” General Radziņš also saw the importance of such a union in the creation of a wider Baltic-Black Sea, or Intermarium union – Latvia would act as a mediator between Poland and Lithuania, resolving the contradictions used by the USSR to divide and subjugate the region. The Lithuanian poet, philosopher and diplomat Oscar Milosz (1877-1939) also foresaw possible geopolitical challenges from both German and Soviet Russian revanchism, so he called for the creation of a geopolitical barrier between the two great powers from the newly established states. One of these barriers would be the union of Latvia and Lithuania.
The geopolitical aspect of Pan-Baltism characterizes our interests, while the cultural aspect characterizes our mission. The significance of this mission lies in the fact that the Baltic peoples are not one of the branches of the Indo-European peoples, but a stock and roots. Lithuanian language is closest to the Proto-Indo-European language. Language determines our way of thinking, way of thinking determines culture, but culture determines civilization. The origin of Indo-Europeans can be traced back to the ancient Baltic settlements, from which they later spread throughout Eurasia. The development of Indo-European languages can be seen as a dialect continuum, when the originally widespread Baltic-Indo-European primary language was divided into different dialects, which in the long run led to the formation of new Indo-European branches. In the present territories of Latvia and Lithuania, apart from migrations and imperial struggles, the original Indo-European culture was preserved.
If we are the source of Western civilization, then we do not have to blindly imitate all the “progressive” tendencies from abroad, but get rooted more deeply in our essence so that others can learn from us. Baltic culture is as important to the West as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations – they were in the downstream of Indo-European culture, the source of which came from our ancestors. This rooting and expansion of one’s identity is possible – Latvia and Lithuania must form a union! We have nothing to lose – Latvians and Lithuanians are separated by centuries, but united by common roots in the millennia. Such a union would not mean a mechanical merging of the two nations, but political cooperation, with the widest possible right of autonomy for each nation.
It’s time to implement the idea of Pan-Baltism! It is no coincidence that the Baltic peoples, in spite of all the invaders and oppressors, have preserved the unique Indo-European cultural heritage for thousands of years and stood guard over all Western culture against invasions from the East. It shows the involvement of a higher power and and mission which have been given to us as a sacred heritage and duty. Thousands of generations of our people have given their lives for this sacred and have put the banner of this struggle in our hands.
The Latvian-Lithuanian or Baltic Union would form the cultural core of a new union of the Baltic-Black Sea peoples, which would return the entire Western civilization to its roots and give it new energy for future development. The Baltic Union must also establish the closest relations with Estonia, which is united with Latvia by 700 years of common political history in the Livonian Confederation, as well as with the slavicised Belarusian nation, which has its roots in Baltic culture. More broadly, these steps are part of a new Prometheist policy in which Poland and Ukraine have an important geopolitical role.
 It has also strongly influenced the Finno-Ugric peoples, who thus fit into the Western cultural space.
 Usurers, which benefited not from production or intermediation but from the formation of debt relations, were excluded from this hierarchy – any traditional culture has tried to limit this phenomenon as detrimental to society.
 Akmens laikmets Latvijas teritorijā. Viewed: https://enciklopedija.lv/skirklis/4433-akmens-laikmets-Latvijas-teritorij%C4%81
 Jurevičs, Pauls. Idejas un īstenība. Grāmatu Draugs, 1946., P. 213
 Muktupāvels, Valdis. Par dažiem mūsdienu folkloristikas un tās robežzinātņu jautājumiem: atskatoties uz savas zinātniskās darbības 25 gadiem. Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis, 2012. gads 66. sējums 1./2. numurs, 88. lpp. Viewed: http://www.lza.lv/LZA_VestisA/66_1-2/7_Valdis%20Muktupavels.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2_9hMjB_OaX8DHS2cH7FSxinNruhcRe8skj33fj5cXs_avfDTcFPITn5k
 Baumanis, A. Kronvaldu Atis. Dzīve. Darbu izlase. Rīga, 1938., P. 395
 Goba, Alfrēds. Kronvalda rakstu izlase. Militārās literatūras apgādes fonda izdevums, 1937., P. 147.
 Rainis. Indulis un Ārija. Viewed: http://www.korpuss.lv/klasika/Senie/Rainis/IndAr/2cel.htm
 Virza, Edvarts. Revue Baltique. No: Edvarts Virza. Raksti. 2. sējums. Sast. Kubuliņa, Anda, “Zinātne”, 2008.g., P. 140.
 Radziņš, Pēteris Voldemārs. Latvija un Lietuva. No: Pētera Voldemāra Radziņa rakstu krājums. Comp. Purviņš, Agris. Ģenerāļa Radziņa biedrība, 2016, P. 579.
 Ibid…, P. 578
 Revue Baltique.., P. 140.