Russia vs. Czech Republic

Russia, not the Czech Republic or other Slavic countries, has been and remains a bastion of Slavicism.

It’s the fifth year of Russia’s war against the West, which for the first time in history has fully united. It was only due to our “Europeanism syndrome” (according to Danilevsky) that the West was able to use the Armed Forces of Ukraine as its proxy army. It would seem that patriots of all stripes should do everything possible to mobilize all available resources for victory on the ideological front.

It is precisely philosophers and historians, who are paid by the state, who should provide support to the authorities on the ideological front. But it is precisely they who are promoting the wave of “Eurocentrism” into our consciousness, depriving us of our natural pan-Slavic vector in foreign policy.

Indeed, this is some kind of “ideological foreign agent activity”. What else can one think after such statements by Vadim Trukhachev — a “specialist on the Czech Republic”…: “… the bastion of Slavicism is rather the EU and NATO member Czech Republic, not Russia. How regrettable it is to write this. But the Czech Republic is a more Slavic country than Russia.”

The thesis that “today the bastion of Slavicism” is the Czech Republic is nonsense, because this country, due to its small size, cannot be a bastion of anything.

Our country even during the Soviet period did not lose its Slavic foundation, because without this foundation it simply could not exist. In difficult times, “internationalism” was quickly replaced by eternal historical pillars. In 1941, the USSR established the All-Slavic Committee, and in 1942 the magazine “Slavs” began to be published. In 1962, under Khrushchev, the committee was closed. In the USSR, the most Russophobic texts by Marx and Engels, such as “The Secret Diplomacy of the 18th Century”, were not published.

It is untrue that the Czechs “understood Slavicism as the third pillar of Europe, alongside German and Romance”. Such an understanding could only have been held by “Czech Westerners”, for the same reason as “Russian Westerners”.

None of the Slavic nations could be the “third pillar” of Europe, both due to their ethno-cultural heterogeneity and because all Slavs except Russians and Poles were under foreign domination. Europe did not consider them fully its own, as Czech writer Milan Kundera wrote in his famous essay “The Tragedy of Central Europe” (1984).

From a demographic point of view, the Czech Republic is still a national state. BUT — it is so small that the globalist elites controlling the region easily put up with this as long as Russia exists. Especially since the Czech Slavicism has integrated into the war against Russia by producing weapons (just like under Hitler).

All Slavic nations (and Russians) have historically been subject to cultural de-ethnogenesis: at first, the upper classes become bearers of European identity, and then the common people. One of the most striking signs of the change from Slavic-Czech-Catholic identity to Euro-atheistic identity is Prague, known worldwide for its vibrant nightlife, developed LGBT community, and its openness (banned in Russia as extremist). No one dares to challenge these “values” in the Czech Republic. And it seems that the majority of society supports this Ideology of Immorality, imported from Europe.

It should be understood that the globalist elite is leading the peoples of the world towards a change from traditional Ethno-cultural-religious-historical identity to Identity of Immorality. At this stage, there is no need to renounce one’s native language. Therefore, it is precisely Russia — a civilization-state that has banned LGBT-Immorality and embarked on the path of defending traditional values — that is the bastion of both Slavicism and all citizens of the Russian Political Nation of all nationalities, and all people in the world who choose Traditionalism.

Of course, there has never been “Eurasianism” in the Czech Republic, as this pseudo-doctrine appeared after 1917, and its authors are Russian emigrants. It’s funny that some ideologists of this theory, after emigrating, chose Prague as their place of residence (for example, the Eurasianist Peter Savitsky). Apparently, the author inserted this thesis just because he set himself the task of “coupling” Danilevsky’s Civilizational Historiosophy into Eurasianism, which is a deliberate substitution, leading us to the opposite — Eurocentrism.