michal valčo, katarína valčová, daniel slivka, nina i

765Izvirniznanstveničlanek/Article(1.01)Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly79(2019)3,765—785Besediloprejeto/Received:12/2019;sprejeto/Accepted:12/2019UDK/UDC:321.64:1OsuskýS.Š.DOI:https://doi.org/10.34291/BV2019/03/Valco

Michal Valčo, Katarína Valčová, Daniel Slivka, Nina I. Kryuko-va, Dinara G. Vasbieva and Elmira R. Khairullina Samuel Štefan Osusky’s Theological-Prophetic Criticism of War and TotalitarianismOsuskýjeva teološko-preroška kritika vojne in totalitarizma

Abstract: ThisarticleanalyzesthethoughtlegacyofSamuelŠtefanOsuský(1888–1975),afamousSlovakphilosopherandtheologian,pertainingtohisfightaga-insttotalitarianismandwar.Havinglivedduringarguablythemostdifficultperi-odof(Czecho-)Slovakhistory,whichincludedthetwoworldwars,theemergen-ceofindependentCzechoslovakiain1918,itsfateful,forcefulsplitbyNaziGer-manyin1939,followedbyitsreestablishmentafterWWIIin1945,onlytobeafflictedagainbyanewkindoftotalitarianismontheleft,itisnosurprisethatOsuskýaimedhisphilosophicalandtheologicalcriticismespeciallyatthetwogreat human ideologies of the 20thcentury–Fascism(includingitsGerman,ra-cialversion,Nazism,whichhepreferredtocall»Hitlerism«),andCommunism(aboveallinitshistoricalshapeofStalinistBolshevism).Afterexploringthehu-manpredicamentin»boundarysituations,«i.e.situationsofultimateanxiety,despairbutalsohopeandtrust,religiousmotivesseemedtogaintheupperhand,accordingtoOsuský.Asa»rationaltheist,«heattemptedtodrawfromtheology,philosophyandscienceascomplementarysourcesofwisdomcombiningtheminhisstruggletofindsatisfyinginsightsforlargerquestionsofmeaning.Osusky’sideas in his book War and Religion (1916)andarticleThePhilosophyofBolshe-vism,Fascism,andHitlerism(1937)manifestthemuch-neededpropheticinsightthathasthepotentialtoenlightenourownstruggleagainstthecreepingforcesoftotalitarianism,rightandleftthatseektoengulfoursocietiestoday.

Keywords:SamuelŠtefanOsuský,communism,bolshevism,Nazism/Hitlerism,anthropology,war

Povzetek:ČlanekanaliziramiselnozapuščinoSamuelaŠtefanaOsuskýja(1888–1975),znanegaslovaškegafilozofainteologa,kisenanašananjegovbojprotitotalitarizmuinvojni.Osuskýježivelvnajtežjemobdobju(češko-)slovaškezgo-dovine.Vnjemstasezgodilidvesvetovnivojniinpotem,1918.,nastanekne-odvisneČeškoslovaške,kipajoje1939.silovitoinusodnorazklalanacističnaNemčija.Podrugisvetovnivojni,leta1945,jebilaČeškoslovaškaponovnovzpo-

766 Bogoslovni vestnik 79 (2019) • 3

stavljena,ajojetakojspetprizadelanovavrstatotalitarizma,tokratlevega.Zatonasnepreseneča,dajeOsuskýsvojofilozofskointeološkokritikousmerilzlastivdvevelikičloveškiideologiji20.stoletja:fašizem(vključnoznjegovonemško,rasnorazličico,nacizmom,okateremjerajegovorilkoto»hitlerizmu«)inkomunizem(predvsemvnjegovizgodovinskioblikistalinističnegaboljševiz-ma).Zdise,dajeOsuský,poraziskovanjučloveškestiskev»mejnihsituacijah«,tj.vrazmerahskrajnetesnobe,obupa,patudiupanjainzaupanja,dalprednostverskimtemam.Kot»racionalniteist«jeposkušalčrpatiizteologije,filozofijeinznanostikotkomplementarnihvirovmodrosti,kijihjepovezovalvsvojemprizadevanju,dabinašelzadovoljiveodgovorenavečjavprašanjasmisla.Osu-skýjeveideje,iznjegoveknjigeVojna in religija(1916)terčlankaFilozofijabolj-ševizma,fašizmainhitlerizma(1937),razodevajoprepotrebenpreroškiuvid,kilahkorazsvetlinašlastenbojprotipotuhnjenimsilamtotalitarizma,desnegainlevega,kidanesposkušajozavladatinašidružbi.

Ključne besede:SamuelŠtefanOsuský,komunizem,boljševizem,nacizem/hitleri-zem,antropologija,vojna

1. IntroductionSamuelŠtefanOsuský(1888–1975)wasabishopoftheLutheranChurchinSlo-vakiaandaprofessoroftheologyattheLutheranTheologicalSchoolinBratislava.OneofthemostversatileintellectualoftheLutheranChurchatthetime,Osuskýwasknownforhisexpertiseinphilosophy(includingphilosophyofreligion),psychology,religioushistory,andsociology.Hegrewupinhumblecircumstancesasasonofatanner.Nevertheless,hegotgoodeducation,firstattheHighSchoolinTrnava(TrnavskeGymnasium)andthenLutheranLyceumandtheTheologicalAcademyinBratislava.Osuskýcontinuedinhistheologicalstudiesabroad,firstinErlangen,theninJenaandLeipzigandlaterinhisphilosophicalstudiesattheFa-cultyofPhilosophyofCharlesUniversityinPrague.HeearnedhisdoctorateinphilosophyinPraguein1922.Hisseconddoctoratewasfromlaw(fromtheLawAcademyinPresov,Slovakia,in1941).Osuský’swholeprofessionallifewascon-nectedwiththeSlovakLutheranTheologicalFacultyinBratislavawherehestartedteachingasassistantprofessorin1919,laterbecomingatenured,fullprofessorofphilosophy.Unfortunately,itwasnothisoldagethatmadehimquithisbelo-ved job but rather the communist totalitarian machinery made him abdicate and acceptanearlyretirementin1950,attheageof62.

Inphilosophy,Osuský’smajorareasofinterestwereSlovakandSlavicphilo-sophy.Whenitcametohisreligious/theologicaloutlook,Osuskýcouldbecha-racterizedasarationaltheiststrivingtobuilduponthefoundationofhisLutheranheritage.Insteadofrevelation,liturgyorthechurch’stradition,however,heten-dedtoprefermetaphysicalreasoninginhistheological-philosophicalargumenta-tion.Neithertheemergingmovementofpersonalism,norreligiousexistentialismfoundmuchfavorinhiseyes.ThoughOsuskýcouldneverbeidentifiedwithone

767Michal Valčo idr. - Samuel Štefan Osusky’s Theological-Prophetic Criticism ...

movementofthoughtorphilosophicalschool,heoftenquoted»EmanuelRadl,T.G.Masaryk,HenriBergson,NikolajLossky,«andothersmostlyfromtheidealistcamp(Gažík2012,4).AlongwithEmanuelRadl,TomasGarrigueMasaryk(fromCzechia),andJanLajciakwithJanKvacala(fromSlovakia),Osuskywaswellawareofthebankruptcyofthehumanisticidealsandpositivistic,scientisticoptimismofliberalintellectualspriortotheeraoftheWorldWars.Heaimedhisphilosophicalandtheologicalcriticismespeciallyatthetwogreathumanideologiesofthe20th century–Fascism(includingitsGerman,racialversion,Nazism),andCommunism(aboveallinitshistoricalshapeofStalinistBolshevism).

ItisnoteasytoanswerconclusivelythequestionwhetherOsuskýwasmoreaphilosopheroratheologian.Asa»rationaltheist,«heattemptedtodrawfrombothsourcesofwisdomcombiningtheminhisstruggletofindsatisfyinginsightsforlargerquestionsofmeaning,suchas:Whatislife’smeaning?Whatisthepur-poseofhumanity,oragivennation?Howmuchcanweknow?Whatistherela-tionshipoffaith(religion)andscience(scientificinquiry)?Osuskýwasconvincedthatatheologianlockedintodogmaticpropositionsand/orfocusedmerelyonthechurch’straditionwillnotbecompetenttodelveintothemanydiverseintel-lectualchallengesofhisera.Hethereforedecidedtobeatheologizingphilosopherwithintentionalsensitivitytoanthropology,historyofideas,andhistoryofcultu-re(abovealltheSlavicculture).Yet,Osuskýneverdepartstoofarfromtheologyorexistentiallyrelevantreligiousphilosophy.Whenitcomestoexploringtositu-ationofhumansin»boundarysituations,«i.e.situationsofultimateanxiety,de-spairbutalsohopeandtrust,religiousmotivesseemtogaintheupperhand.ThisisespeciallytruewithregardthetwoworldwarsthatOsuskýwitnessedtaketheirtollsonhumansaroundhimaswellasthelargersociety.Lookingforameaningbehindtheunspeakablesuffering,Osuskýresortstopointouttheneedofreligi-ousvalues,offaithandGod–whichphilosophycanneverprovide.

Osuský’slegacyisbothstimulatingandunsettlinginanagewhenweseemtoexperiencesimilar»signsofthetimes«likehedidintheinterwarperiod(especi-allythe1930s).Ourevaluationofhislegacyisbasedprimarilyonhistwocrucialworksinwhichhedealswiththephenomenonofwarandthetwoevil,humanideologiesthatspranguptolifeinthecourseofthe20thcentury–Fascism(inclu-dingitsspecial,racialmanifestationinwhatOsuskýcalls»Hitlerism«)andBolshe-vism(ahyperformofappliedCommunism).Bothoftheseideologiesresultedininconceivablesufferingandthedeathsofmillions.Howcanwepreventoursoci-etiesfromlapsingbackintoanew»socialdeath«resultinginthenextgenocide94F

1 or»re-education«laborcamps?Osuský’sideasinhisbookWar and Religion (1916)andhisarticleonThePhilosophyofBolshevism,Fascism,andHitlerism(1937)manifestthemuch-neededpropheticinsightthathasthepotentialtoenlightenourownstruggleagainstthecreepingforcesoftotalitarianism,rightandleft.

1 Inconnectiontothisproblem,Irecommendanincisivetreatmentofthephenomenonofgenocideasaresultof›socialdeath‹bytheSlovenianauthorBojanŽalec(2013).


2. Osuský’s views on the war and its relationship to religionThequestionconcerningtherelationshipbetween»WarandReligion«isafoun-dationalquestion,inOsuský’sview,whereotherimportantconcernsmeetand/orgettheirrelentlessurgency.Whetheritisthequestionofthesufferingoftheinnocent,ortherelationshipofGod’sKingdomtotheearthlykingdom(s),theyallseemtopointtotheultimatequestionthatwasaskedduringtheGreatWar(WWI):»HowcouldajustGodallowsuchbloodshed?«(Osuský1916,3)ThewayOsuskýarticulatesthisquestionmakesitevenmorepoignant:»Howcouldsuchhighlypraisedcultureandhumanenesshavelaidsuchutmostterroronthesho-uldersofman?HowcouldthemostChristianandmostenlightenedofnationshaveburnedwithsuchterrifyingangeragainsteachother,forgettingeverythingthatisChristian,honorable,conscientious?Howisitthatthemorenoblearemorepronetofallthanthelesser!?«(3)WhileOsuskýadmitsthatbeinginthemidstofthewarfrenzyrendersanyandallinterpretersunobjective(toaconsiderabledegree),hefeelstheburdentoaddressthisquestionandasksGodforhelpinghimwiththistask.Hedoessodespiteexpectingtoaddonly»afewburningchar-coalsintothefire«(4)ofliterarytreasureofthenation.

Dealingfirstwiththequestion»Whatiswar?,«Osuskýoutlinesseveralpossibleanswersfromphilosophers,politicians,theologians,and,curiously,fromthechil-dreninhisreligiousclasses.HementionsAugustineandhis»Justwartheory«andgoesondiscussingthevariousaspectsofwarrelativetothedefensivepurposesofthesecularstate.Whilenotrejectingwarasalastresorttodefendone’scoun-try,Osuskýmournfullyobserves(quotingMartensen)that»Waristhemostpowerfulproofofthedepravityofhumannature,thegreatestplagueoftheearth.EvenifweaponbegivenbyGod,itismisusedinsinfulhandsofmen.«(Osuský1916,6)

Osuskýthengoestotheissueofreligion.Hehasasuccinctanswertotheque-stion»Whatisreligion?«:»Religionisthecollectionofalldivineandhumanexpres-sionsrelativetoGod.Therearetwodirectionsthatwefindinreligion.Onegoesfromtoptobottom,fromGodtocreation;theotherfrombottomup,frommantoGod.«(Osuský1916,7)Thesetwomovementsarenotequal,theformertakingprecedenceoverthelatterbothintimeandpotency,accordingtoOsuský.Godisalwaystheinitiatorofthemovementandenablerofman’sreturntoapristinesta-tefromwhichhumanshavefallenduetosin.Intheanthropologicaldimension,then,religionis»acollectionexpressionsofinnerpiety,itislife,whichcomesoutverballyinconfessions–dogmas,andinreallifeinthecultandmorality.«(8) Osu-skýisconvincedthatwarandreligionaretwoincommensurablephenomena,eachrelatingtoadifferentsphereofactionandresponsibility.Theformerpertainsthemundanerealm,naturalrightsandpoliticaljustice;thelatterrelatestoone’sspi-ritualwellbeingandeternalsalvation.Nevertheless,thereisanintersectionwhich,ifmisunderstood,canbecomeacauseofmuchconfusionandunfortunateaction.God’srelationshiptohiscreationincludesnamelyhisrelationshiptowar(asso-methingthathumans,createdinGod’simage,areresponsiblefor);furthermore,

769

duetoman’srelatednesstoGodandGod’screation,itisnecessarytoestablishwhatoughttobeman’sattitudetowar.OsuskýsurveysavailableNewTestamentinterpretationsofwar,includingexamplesofhowtheNTtextstreatsoldiersofthattime.HethencontinuestoofferasummaryofJohnHus’,MartinLuther’s,andtheLutheranSymbolicBooks’(Confessions)thoughtsonthistopic.NextfollowsanoutlineofthereasoningofGermantheologians(livingshortlybeforeorduringOsuský’stime),mostofwhomendorsethewar(WWI),comparingittothelegiti-matefightofemperorConstantinetheGreattoconquerinthenameofGod(e.g.ViktorSchultze,professorfromGreifswald).(19)95F

2 ThenextsectioninOsuský’sbookonWar and Religionisdevotedtowhatthe

SlovakLutherantheologiansthinkaboutthewar.HenoticesthatmostLutheranpastorstendtobecautiousaboutpronouncingjudgments,letaloneinstigatingpeopletoembracetheseeminglyomnipresentwarfrenzy.Theirstatementsarepastoral,promptingforalleviationofthesufferingofthewoundedsoldiersandprayingforpeace.Theroleofthechurchisseenprimarilyinpreparingforandworkingtowardspeace.Sometheologiansreflectonthepossiblereasonsbehindthewar,arguingthatGodispunishingtheevilofhumanhearts,lettinghumanna-tionswagewaragainsteachother.Yet,thisisnotGod’soriginalplan,perhapsnotevenanactivedoingbutratherapassivedivinejustice,allowingthesethingstohappenasaself-inducedpunishment.Osuský’sliftsup(aboveallothers)MartinRazus’stancetowardthewar,remindinghisreadersofGod’spassivitywithregardtoongoinghumanwareffortsandtheutmostillegitimacyofcallinguponGod’snamewhenfightingforvictory.(Osuský1916,24‒28)CriticalremarksareofferedpertainingthemagazineStraz na Sione [TheZionWatchtower]whosearticlesten-dedtoeuphemizethedisastrousconsequencesofwar,liftingupinsteadthepo-tential»benefitsofwar.«96F

3Thismagazinewishedtoportraythewarassomethingthat»Godwanted,«toOsuský’sdismay.(29)Newphonelines,postoffices,tele-graph,andrailroadsarelistedasconcreteexamplesofso-calledwarbenefits.

Inthefinalsectionofhisbook,Osuskýoffershisownreflectiononwhathecalls»Godandwar«(revealingly,not»ReligionandWar«).(Osuský1916,31f)Hedivideshisreasoningtotwocomplementarysections:a)therelationshipofGodtowarandb)therelationshipofman(aChristianbeliever)towar.Whenappro-achingGodfromatheologicalperspective,wemustconsiderhisqualitiesandcharactertraits,arguesOsuský.Heidentifiesthreeclassesortypesofdivineat-tributes:(1)thephysicalclass–representingdivineomnipotence,omniscienceandeternity;(2)thelogicalclass–representingjustice,holiness,andwisdom;and(3)theethicalclass–comprisinggoodness,benevolence,andfaithfulness.Dependingonwhichofthesetypesofdivineattributesonewishestopromoteasfoundationalordecisive,oneendsupeitherinthecampofwhatOsuskýcalls»Pagan-Mohammedans,«orthe»OldTestament-Jewish«camp,orthe»NewTe-

2 Osuský,1916,19.Osuskýofferstheexampleof13GermanprofessorsteachingatvariousuniversitiesinGermanyoftheperiod.

3 OsuskýalludesheretothemagazineStraz na Sione, vol. 11, no. 1, 1914 and later to vol. 23, no. 3–4 1915.

Michal Valčo idr. - Samuel Štefan Osusky’s Theological-Prophetic Criticism ...


stament-Christian«camp.(32)Onemaythusfindbiblicalevidenceforhisappro-achandjustifyone’sviewsbasedonanimbalancedandthereforeinadequatetheologicalunderstandingofGod.OsuskýdoesnotagueforanaïveunderstandingofGodbasedsolelyonHisattributesofgoodnessand/orbenevolence.Instead,heisconvincedthatChristiansshouldassumethese»ethical«attributesofGodasfoundationalforanyhumantheologicaldiscourseonGodandhisrelationshiptohiscreation.Nevertheless,divinepowerandjustice(»physical«and»logical«attributes)mustbalanceouttheprimaryemphasisongoodness,qualifyingitandsituatingitinapropercontext.»Godisneitherapagan,arbitrarytyrant,deman-dingfearofhisslaves;norisHeadeityrelentlessinHisjustice;butwhilebeingomnipotentandjust,Heis,aboveall,ourgoodandgraciousfather,whomweoughttofearashischildrenbutwhomwecanalsolove.«(36)Ifunderstoodpro-perly,onemustconcludethatGodneithersends,norwillthewar.Becauseweliveinarelativelyfree,fragilewar,influencedlargelybytheimperfectdecisionsofhumanagents,forcesofevilsometimesresultinconflictsandwars.GodallowsthistohappenaspartofHisprovidentialcareofthecreation.

Osuskýobservesthatitisnotgiventoushumanstobeabletoanalyzethena-tureanddecisionsofdivineprovidence.Wedonotreallyknowwhyagood,justandomnipotentGoddoesnotpreventwarsfromhappeningorstopthemoncetheyhavestarted.Thisquestionleadsus,accordingtoOsuský,allthewaybacktoparadise,tothefallofAdamandEve.HesuspectsthatthevalueandvirtueofhumanfreedomhassomethingtodowithGod’sseeminglackofactionwhenitcomestostoppingthesuffering.DivineomnipotenceisorderedbyHisjustice(in-cludingwisdom)andgoodnessandevenwhenwewishedthatHewouldact,Hisisahigherplan.OurroleisnottojudgeGodforwhatwebelieveisanunwarran-tedabsenceoralackofactionbutrathertotrustinHisplanbasedonHispromi-sesandHisdealingswiththefallenhumanityintheglorioushistoryofsalvation.Yet,thestingremains,asOsuskýobserves,commentingonRomans11:33–34.Wedonotunderstandfullywhysome»innocent«peoplesuffersomuchappa-rentlymeaninglessevil;nordowecomprehendhowsomeare»hardened«toremainintheirrebellion.(Osuský1916,38)Theonlypossiblevindication,ifwemaycallitsuch,willcomeintheeschaton,attheendoftimes.GodwillactandHewillbringgoodoutofevil,andallofHisactionswillbetheperfectcombinati-onofgoodness,justiceandwisdom.Hiscurrentpassivityisanindicationofourmiseryandourtasktolearnfromourmistakesandtomaturemorally/spiritually.

97F

4

WhenitcomestoaChristian’srelationshiptowar,Osuskýchangesthetoneofhisreasoningfromamoretheological/dogmaticonetoanethicalone.Humansareci-tizensoftheearth,ofspecificcountriesdefinedbynationalprinciplesandledbyimperfectleaders.Thismeansthattherearetimeswhennationsmustprotecttheirsovereigntybygoingintoawar.Thewholequestioniscomplexandcomplicated,asOsuskýadmits.Tonavigatethesedangerouswaters,hesuggestsattheoutsetthatChristiansmustalwaysbeabletodistinguishthetwoplanesofresponsibility–(1)

4 Osuský(1916,38)speaksofa»pedagogicalaspectofwar«inthisrespect.

771

towardsGod(coram Deo)and(2)towardshumans(coram hominibus)andthecre-ation.Ifonemustfightinajust(i.e.defensive)war,onedoesitsolelyashiscivicre-sponsibility,neverashisreligiouscalling(i.e.inthenameofGod).Warisnotatooltosecuresalvation,nortofindfavorinGod’seyes.(Osuský1916,39)Itis,however,anactofChristianfaithwhenaChristian,draftedtobeasoldier,sacrificeshimselfinthewareffortofhiscountry.Itisequallyanactoffaithtodecidetobeobedienttoone’searthlygovernment(legitimaterulers)andtofightoreventokillaspartofalegitimatedefensivewareffort.Yet,asOsuskýisquicktopointout,»theartoffigh-tingshouldbedictatedbyhisChristianconviction.Evenifhiscounterpartwereapoliticalenemy,[theChristian]mustalwaysseehimreligiouslyashisneighbor.Hemustthusstrivetorenderhimunfitforcombatinthegentlestpossibleway,forexamplebytakinghimcaptive.«(44)Ontheotherhand,thoserevoltingagainstanyinvolvementofChristiansinthewararefanaticswhohavelosttheirsoundjudgment.InOsuský’sview,suchpeoplewishtoremovetheconsequenceofhumandepravitywhilecompletelyignoringitsroots.»Thoseagitatingagainstwarandnotagainstitscause,isdisregardingreality,ignoringthehumanpredicament,uselesslyravingabouthowthey[i.e.humans]shouldbe.«(44)ThetaskoftheChristiancitizensshouldbetoalwaysworktowardcultivatinghumanvirtues,overcomingsinfuldesiresandtheconsequencesofsinfulactions,alleviatinghumansuffering,andhelpinginthepro-cessofreconciliationamongthewarringparties.Neitherwars,norhumanideologi-es(e.g.Socialism)willbringaboutworld’speace,accordingtoOsuský.(47)

Thislastideaprovedtohaveapropheticvalue.AstimeprogressedaftertheGreatWar(WWI),itbecameobviousthatOsuský’spredictionsoftheimminentdangersofappliedMarxism(especiallyintheformofStalinistBolshevism)

98F

5 and variousstrandsofFascismwereright.Nothumanlyinvented,totalitarian(andpseudo-religious)ideologieswillusheranageofpeaceandprosperity.TheonlyworldviewthatOsuskýhopeshasthispotential–atleastontheEuropeanconti-nentandonlywhenappliedcompetentlyintherealmofhumancivicresponsibi-lities–is»internationalizedChristianity.«(Osuský1916,50) 9 9F

6WhatfollowsisOsuský’sstruggleagainstwhatemergedasarguablythemostinsidiousdangerstohumandignitytheworldhasseensofar–Fascism,Hitlerism,andBolshevism.Osuský’slegacyhereisanimportantone.

3. Osuský’s Struggle Against Fascism and »Hitlerism«AmongOsuský’smanypronouncementsagainstFascism,especiallyintheformofGerman»Hitlerism,«orNazism,onestandsoutasuniquelysystematicand

5 FortheideologicalbackgroundandconditionsofthesuccessoftheOctoberBolshevikrevolutionseeMalmenvall 2017.

6 OnthepoliticalimportanceofChristianfaithanditsdecisiveroleingroundingofdemocracy,inthelightofKierkegaard’sthought,seeŽalec2017.ForTocqueville’sviewonthesamesubjectseeRožič2017.ForChristianityasapositivefactoroftolerance,andthereforepeaceanddemocracy,seeŽalec2018.OntheChristianpotentialforrenunciationofthewilltoviolenceinthelightofGirardiantheoryseeEkpunoby2018.



deep.OsuskýmadeitatthemeetingofSlovakLutheranpastorsinRužomberokonNovember11,1937.HislectureThePhilosophyofBolshevism,Fascism,andHitlerismwasdeliveredtoSlovakLutheranpastorssomeofwhomhadbeenknowntoeitheropenlysupportorbelatentlyinclinedtowardtheNaziideology.OsuskýwasnotalonewhofoughtagainstthetyrannicalideologyofFascism(initsvariedforms)andCommunism(aboveallintheformofSovietStalinistBolshe-vism).Thus,onNovember11,1937,threeothermenstoodbesidehim,eachinhisownwaymadethecaseforfreedom,democracy,andgenuineChristianity–allofwhichtheysawascomplementaryandmutuallyreinforcing.Professorofpa-storaltheology,JánJamnický(1878‒1967),professorofsystematictheology,JánBeblavý(1898‒1968),andpastorJurajStruhárik(1893‒1969).

AllfourlecturersconcurredthattheologyofliberalProtestantismhadledinGermanytoadeviationfromChrist’sGospel,aswellastheoriginal,gospelempha-sesoftheGermanreformer,MartinLuther.ThisliberalProtestanttheologyresul-tedinanidolatrousworshipofthevisiblechurchanduncriticalpraiseofmodernhumancultureasmanifestationsofGod’swillandcreativepower.ItwasthroughthehumancreativegeniusandraciallypurefellowshipoftheelectthatGod’sglo-rywasbestmanifestedand,assuch,shouldbecelebratedandprotected.Thepe-opleofGodthusceasedtobeadiversecommunityofconvictedandpardonedsinners,learningtoreceiveGod’sgraceandreflectHismercyandcalledtoprocla-imrepentanceandtheforgivenessofsinsinthenameofJesusChrist.ThenatureoftheChristianChurchwasnolongerdefinedprimarilybythein-breakingoftheKingdomofGodtothemundanerealityofourtangibleworld.ThepeopleofGodwasnowperceivedasaraciallypurecommunityoftheelect,calledtofilltheearthandembodythedivinemandatetoruleandgovernthosewhoareinferior;or,worseyet,toremovethatwhichisdeemedasmalignant,whichcannotbecured.

100F

7 Jamnický,Beblavý,Struhárik,andOsuskýinunisoncalledthegatheredLutheranpastorsbacktoLuther’stheology,emphasizinghistheologyofthecrossoveraga-instthedevianttheologyarisingfromracialideologythattransformsChristianfa-ithintoareligiousidolatryoftheArianChristianity.(Hinlicky2016,80‒81)

InhislectureonthephilosophyofBolshevism,Fascism,andHitlerism,OsuskýsetouttoanalyzethesourcesunderlyingFascism,includingtheracial-biologicalconceptionofFascismofAdolfHitler–OsuskýcalledthisversionofFascism,»Hi-tlerism,«commonlyknownasNazism.Osuskýdidnothaveenoughtimetopro-videacomprehensiveaccount.Giventhehistoricsituatednessanditsimmediateneeds,heexploredtheLutheran»flirting«withtheideasofFascismasheobser-veditinhistoryandthepresent.OsuskýidentifiesfourelementsthesynergyofwhichhelpedFascismemergeasapotentideologicalmovement.(1)ThefirstoneistheRenaissancemovementwithitspreferencefornationinsteadofthechurch.(2)ThesecondoneisMachiavelli’sThe Prince (1532).Thisis,accordingtoOsuský,»thefirstteacherofMussoliniandhisfascism.Itisonlynecessarytoinsertthe

7 JánŠafinobserversthatsimilardynamicscanbeseenintheearly1920sinRussiawithregardtothecommunists’risetopowerandthefateoftheJewsinRussia.(Šafin2017,106‒107)

773

word»Duce«[Leader]inplaceoftheword»prince«toseethis.«(Osuský2013,203)(3)ThethirdoneisHegelianidealisticphilosophyand,finally,(4)GiovaniGentile 1 0 1F

8(1875‒)whomOsuskýcalls»theofficialphilosopheroffascism«(204)andwho,inOsuský’sview,builtonHegel’sphilosophybyaddingaspecific,volun-taristicandactualisticflavortoit.

»ThefoundationofGentile'smetaphysicsistheactofknowinginthesen-seofactionandthis,furthermore,inthesenseofacreativeactionofthemind./…/OnlythisiswhatisalivetoGentile,whatexistsastheegoinitsactofconsciousness.Realityisonlythinkabletotheextentthatitisreallythought.Thinkingdoesnotcomprehendreality,asitis,butcreatesreality.Philosophythenisandoughttobeacreatorofreality.«(204)

OsuskýpointsoutthatGentilemakesthephilosophicalmindintoacreatorofreality.Theactofknowingasdoing,asanactofacreativemindintheontologicalsense,istheconstitutivefoundationforGiovaniGentile’smetaphysics.Itisthehumanselfthroughitsintentionalthinking(deliberating)aboutreality,whichgi-vesrealityitsvalidity;infact,theselfcreates (inaway)realityitself.Truthisnotbasedonthecorrespondenceoridentityofthethingsbeingknownandhumanreason;norisitbasedontheidentityofsenseperceptionandreasonbutratherontheidentityofreasonandwill.Toknowistothinkintentionally.Itistothinkandtodesire,towillthatwhichtheselfthinksabout–andthismeanstoact.WhatOsuskýseesbehindtheideologyofFascism,butalsobehindtheideologyofcommunism,whichis,surprisingly,notmuchdifferentfromFascism,isthemo-dernphilosophicalconceptofthesovereignself.(Osuský2013,205‒206)

ThisuneasyrelationshipbetweentwoseeminglyopposingideologiescouldbeobservedinMussolini’scase,too,accordingtoOsuský.

»Ingeneral,itisnecessarytounderstandhisFascism[i.e.Mussolini’s]asareactiontoCommunistaction.Eventhoughhewasasocialist,andinhisworldview,thereremaincertainelementsofsocialism,heisnonethelessconsciouslyantidemocratic,antirationalist,antipositivist,becauseaccor-dingtohimthesetendenciesarethefoundationofdemocracy,andheisanenemyofdemocracy.ZdenekSmetacek(1933,208‒215)callshisten-dency collective spiritualism.Theworlddoesnotexist,itmustbecreatedbythehumanmind,will.«(Osuský2013,206)

PaulHinlickyrightlyseesthattheCartesianprojectofthemodernerathatframedintoantipolesthethinkingsubjectofmanandthesurroundingmaterialworld,engenderedaWesternpoliticaleconomy,which,despiteitstechnologicaladvances,failedtosolvethekeyhumanproblem/predicament:thesinfulgreed

8 IgorTavila(etal.2019,139)arguesimilarlyintheirrecentstudy,claimingthat»Fascism’srisetopowerinItalydirectlyinvolvedthemainexponentsofneo-idealism–thedominantphilosophyatthattime:GiovanniGentileandBenedettoCroce,whowerepromotersrespectivelyoftheManifestooftheFascistIntellectualsandtheManifestooftheAnti-FascistIntellectuals.«



ofthehumanheart(concupiscentia).Technologicalprogressandeconomicwell-beingentailinthecontextofsuchgreedinessthestenchoffnihilismaswecouldsoblatantlyseeinthedeath-campsofthe»ThirdReich.«»Gentile,whowasMussolini’sghost-writer,isthusexposed,andexpositedbyOsuskýtolaybaretherootsoffascisminthemoderndoctrineofthesovereignself.«(Hinlicky2016,81)

Topropupthedoctrineofthesovereignself,theFascistsneededtoabsolutizetheimmanentdimensionofthisworld,riddingitofanyvestigesoftranscendenceandoverarchingmeaning.Butsuch»planeofimmanence,«i.e.»›theworldfreedfromProvidence,teachersandreasonsforthings,«(Adkins-Hinlicky2013,203)inwhichnothingwhatsoeverisorcanbetranscendent,is,minimally,thephilosophi-calrealityofourtimes:thedescentofthemodernsovereignselfintothedarknightofpost-modernnihilism.«(Hinlicky2016,82)Osuskýsawthiscoming,infact,hesawitunfoldingbeforehisveryeyesinItaly,theNaziGermany,andhefearedthatthisvisionofrealitywascreepingintoCzechoslovakiainthelate1930s.

Inadditiontoidealizingthesovereign self,Osuskýcriticizedtheidealization of the state and the aristocratswhoallegedlyhadthenaturalrighttoruleand»gu-ide«thestate.QuotingtheFascistwriterJuliusEvola(1898‒1974),Osuskýwrites:»›Thelightofasublimemythshinesinusaristocrats,inbeingswhosevisageisfrightful,whobreathefreelyinaworldfreedfromProvidence,teachersandrea-sonsforthings,butnowlookingintotheshadowswherethereisnoGodandwheretheythemselvesarehiscreators.‹«(Osuský2013,210)102F

9Theworld»freedfromProvidence,teachersandreason«isadark,shadowyworldtherealityofwhichshouldnotbecelebratedbutratherdreaded.Yet,asOsuskýrevealinglyobserves,thenewaristocrats»breathefreely«inthisworld,beingaccountabletonothingbuttheirownconjuredupdreamsandambitiousgoals.Whatelseco-uldthisbethan»adefinitepieceofgigantism,ofmoderntitanism,«claimsOsu-ský.Yet,thearistocratsdonotactintheirnamebutinthenameofthedivinizedstate,anabsoluteexampleofmoderncollectivetitanism.»Wesaidthatfascismdivinizesthestateandinitseestheincarnationofthemindofthenation.FromallthathasbeensaidweseethatthegigantistmentalityofthenationtakestheplaceofGodforfascismandthatpoliticsisreligionforit.«(210)

ThereisyetanotherrootofFascism,accordingtoOsuský:the idealization of war,whichstandonthemetaphysicalpresuppositionthatwaristhedeepestna-tureofallthings.Thisviewpromptsustobelievethatconflictistheprimary(infactevennormative)expressionoflifeanditsvitality.Ifunderstoodwell,liferequiresbothphysicalandmentalvitality.Attimesitevendemandsactsofhero-ismandsacrifice.Conflictsontheindividuallevelarenotdesirableinviewoftheneedsofthetotalized,divinizedstate,however.Inplaceofinternationalsolidari-tyandclasswarfareadvocatedbythecommunists,Mussoliniandotherfascistscallforaclasssolidarityandnationalwarfare.Lifeisfullofviciousdynamics,al-waysinmotion,permeatedbyconflictandwar.Thisdynamicisthemostfunda-mentallawofhistoryandcannotbeavoided(notinthelongterm,inanycase).

9 OsuskýherecitesHerbertSchneider’sbookThe Making of the Fascist State (Schneider1929,346).

775

Therefore,

»deathawaitswhoeverdoesnotfight.Warisinevitablebecauseinlifethereareantitheses-againapointofcontactwithCommunism.Equilibri-um,likeequality,willneverexist,neitherthenpeace,onlythat,whileCommunistsbringaDarwinistwarbetweenclasses,Mussolinibringsonebetweennations.[Mussolini]isanopenimperialist,because,hesays,im-perialismiseternal,andlawsdonotchangelife.Whateverislivingmustexpand.«(Osuský2013,208)

Obviously,eachfascistleaderwishestoachievethiswithhisnation.So,ulti-mately,ifonefollowsthislogictoitsinevitableconclusion,theworldisandwillremaininastateofwarofallagainstall.

Againstsuchfascistidealizationandabsolutizationofthestate,againsttheso-vereigntyofitspoliticalpower,andagainstthiskindofNietzscheanvoluntaristicnihilism,Osuskýinvokestheterribleethicalconsequencesofsuchapproachtoreality.AreturntothetraditionofChristianPlatonismandanopen,publicackno-wledgmentoftranscendentGodbeingtheonlyviablefoundationformorality,accordingtoOsuský,aretheonlybulwarkagainstthedemonicspiritofFascism(butalsoHitlerismandBolshevism,aswereadinOsuský’stextsonthesubject).OnemightbeundertheimpressionthatOsuskýwasoverreacting.Afterall,Cze-choslovakiawasdemocraticin1937.IthaditsWesternallies,ithadademocratictradition(thoughonlytwo-decadeslong,since1918)andit(ratherthepeopleslivinginitsgeographicalarea)hadoverone-thousand-yearlonghistoryoftheChristiantradition.Tobesure,thesituationofCzechoslovakiainthe1930swasinmanyrespectsdifferentfromtheoneinMussolini’sItaly.Osuskýacknowledgesthis.HemarvelsabouthowitmightbepossiblefortheRomanCatholicChurchofthattimetofindamodus vivendi withMussolini’sregime.Moreimportantly,however,heissuesapropheticwarningagainstwhatheperceivedasechoesofMussolini’srhetoricintheslogansoftheHlinkaVolk’sParty.OsuskýcannothidehisfearthattheCatholicmajorityinSlovakia(easternpartofCzechoslovakia)maybetemptedtoreplaceChristwithanew,politicalmessiah,justasithadhappenedinItaly.YetheisevenmoresurprisedtoseetheSlovakProtestantminorities,especiallyhisfellowLutherans,tobeinclinedtofavorthismalignantideology.Osuskýcanseeonlytworeasonsbehindthis:eithertheLutheransdonotknowthetruenatureofFascismanddonotrealizethedangersofitspoliticalandsoci-alimplementations;or,whichisequallybad,theydonotknowtheirownidentity.

InhiscritiqueofHitlerism(i.e.GermanNazism),OsuskýidentifiesthisemergingGermanideologyasaNeo-Darwinistsynthesisofnewdiscoveriesingenetics,ap-pliedonthehumanracesandhumansocieties.Sincegenesaretheconstitutivefoundationofhumantraits,ratherthanupbringing,geneticsshouldbeseenasdecisivefordeterminingwhichgroupsofpeople–e.i.,whichraces–aremorenoble,worthier,moreadvancedand,ontheotherhand,whichracesareinferior,backwardsoreventoxicfortherestofthehumankind.Thus,accordingtoHitler,



weshouldfollownature’sexamplehereandletthehumansocietiesbegovernbythesamelawsofevolution.Lessevolvedorganisms(or,inthiscase,nationsandraces)havenorightfulclaimonEarth’slimitedresourcesandspace.Morecomplexgenomesmustnotbelimitedbytheirinferiorcounterparts–thisistheprimaryforceofevolution,aswellasofthedevelopmentofhumanhistory.AsOsuskýsumsup:»ifinthestruggleofnaturalselectionthestrongertriumphandiftheGermansarethehigherrace,sotheracemustgotowarwiththelessvalu-ableracesandtriumph.«(Osuský2013,213)TheNaziideologistshavethusbio-logizedtheconceptofthemodern,sovereignselffromFichte,Spengler,andNi-etzsche,(Hinlicky2016,83) 1 0 3F

10situatingitintoacontinuousstruggleofhumanracesforresources,livingspaceandsupremacy.Asitisracethat(allegedly)cre-atesculture,technologyaswellasallscientificknowledge,allmustbeevaluatedonracialprinciples.Theweakmustnotbeallowedtoliveattheexpenseofthestrong.Itwouldbenotonly»unnatural«butalso»inhumane«relativetothesu-perior,entitledrace.1 0 4F

11TheJudeo-ChristianhumanismhadpervertedthevaluesinWesterncivilizationforalmosttwomillennia,becomingoneoftheprincipalenemiesofthehigherraces.TheJewishrace,accordingtoOsuský’sinterpretati-onofHitlerism,isnotonlyarepresentativeofaninferiorculturebutratherisadestroyerofcultureassuch,aparasitethatneedstobeeliminated.

TheSlavicnationsdonothavemuchbetterprospects.Osuskýwarnsinhislec-turethattheNazianthropologyunderestimatestheSlavs,althoughwithoutanysupportingempiricalevidence.Afterall,itisequallyimpossibletoprovethis»myth«asitisimpossibletoemphasizeaprincipleofracialpurity–sinceEuro-peanraceshavebeenmixedsomuchthroughthepastcenturies.AllofthisleadsOsuskýtoissueanurgentwarning:ifthecurrentNazipropagandadepictstheSlavsasinferiorpeoplewhocannotenjoyfullfreedom,lesttherebea»racialchaos,« 105F

12thissamepropagandawillresultinruthlessactsagainstthosewhoarerankedevenlowerthantheSlavs–theJews.

HitlerismoverlapswiththeItalianFascisminmanyrespects,thusclaimingitsuniqueplaceinthefamilyofdiverseFascistmovements.LikeMussolini’sFascism,Hitlerismwasextremelynationalistic,authoritarian,exclusivist,propagandistic,andexpansionistic.Hitlerwishedtomakehisnation,representedandconstitutedthehigher,GermanArianrace,respected,morepowerful,independent,largerandmoresuccessful.WhileMussolini’sFascismdemonizedBolsheviks(onthe

10 OsuskýholdsNietzschemoreresponsiblethanothers.HeobservesthatinthebookThus Spake Zarat-hustraNietzsche»erectedasthenewidealoftheindividualandofthenationtheUbermenschwithhislordlymoralityandtheWilltoPowerashischieffeatureoveragainsttheslavishChristianmorality«(Osuský2013,213).

11 InsteadofjustsummarizingHitler’sideas,OsuskýquotesfromtheMein Kampf extensivelytosupporthisanalysis:»Thestrongdriveawaytheweak,becausethelifeinstinctalwayscrushestheridiculousbondsoftheso-calledhumanityofindividualsandinitsplaceintroducesthehumanityofnature,whichdestroysanddevoursweakness,inordertograntafreefieldofplaytoactualstrength.«(Osuský2013,214);thecorrespondingpassageinHitler’sbookcanbefoundin(Hitler1936,49).

12 OsuskýsummarizesthethoughtshereofanotherfamousGermanNaziideologist,AlfredRosenberg,whoinhisbookThe Myth of Blood of the 20th Century assertsthat»toacknowledgefreedomtodayforCzechsandPolesmeanstobewedtoracialchaos«(Osuský2013,219).

777

class-politicalprinciple),Hitler’sNazismdemonizedtheJewsasarace(aracialprinciplewasintentionallyemployed).Curiously,Hitlerspokeofbuildingdemocra-cy,atrue»Germandemocracy,«which»consistsinthenationwhichasawholefreelychoosesitsLeader,whoresolvestotakeonhimselfallresponsibilityforeverythingthathappens.Inthisdemocracythemajoritydoesnotvote,yettheindividualdecides.«(Osuský2013,214)106F

13Andthisone,aristocratic,enlightenedindividualbecomesthenew»Fuehrer«oftheVolk,apoliticalMessiahwhosetsanewgoalofthehumanlife:itisnotthewellbeingofthestatebutratheroftherace–entitledanddestinedtosubjugateandrule.(214)Asnationispurelyabi-ologicalphenomenon,»abloodorganism,theindividualisonlyanorganofthewholewithoutrights,butonlywithduties.«(216)

4. Osuský’s Struggle Against BolshevismSoonafterthewar(WWII),theatmospherewas»shapedbyareshufflingofthepoliticalforcesintherenewedCzecho-Slovakia.«(Olexák2018,155)Asmentionedbefore,wefindintriguingparallelsandoverlapsbetweentheextremerightideo-logiesofFascismandHitlerism(asracialtypeofFascism)andtheideologiesontheextremeleft–Communism,especiallyinitsappliedversionofStalinistBolshevism.OsuskýwasoneofthefewintellectualsofhistimesinCzechoslovakia(andinEu-rope)whorealizedwithfullsobernesstheevillurkingbehindthesociallyluringfaçadeofBolshevism.Duetoalackofspace,whatfollowsisasuccinctsummaryandevaluationofthisideology,basedonOsuský’sNovemberlecturein1937.

OsuskýstartswithaphilosophicalsummaryofCommunism,pointingoutthattheessenceofthis»philosophyofmaterialism«canbeboileddowntotwowords:»dialecticalmaterialism.«(Osuský2013,194‒195)Followingashortoutlineofthinkersfromthedistanttoanearpast(beginningwithDemocritus)whomayserveasprecursorstoMarx’smoredevelopedandradicalizedideas,Osuskýturnstowhathecallscontemporary»official«dialecticalmaterialismofMarxandEn-gels.Matteristhefirst»thesis«ofthisdialectics,insteadoftheSpirit(asweseeinHegel–whichiswhyLeninusedtocallHegelianism»invertedmaterialism«).(195)YetthenMarxtakesupHegel’s»dialecticalidealism«toexplainhisowndi-alectics.OsuskýseesamajortensionandstumblingblockfortheCommunists,becausethesetwotendencies(i.e.materialismandidealism)arecontradictory.Onemustattributethethinkingpropertytomatterinordertoovercomethiscon-tradiction.Mindthenbecomestheantithesistomatter,asitarisesoutofmatter,yetremainsboundtoitforever.Thedynamicofbiologicalevolutionisascribedtothisdialecticsothatatacertainstageofdevelopment,mindnecessarilydeve-lopsfrommatterasitsantithesis.

»Developmentorchange/…/takeplacedialectically,namely,withathesistoanantithesisandthustoasynthesis,tonew,mutualinfluencingunionofantithe-

13 OsuskýciteshereHitler’sMein Kampf(Hitler1936,73).



ses.«Butwhatismoreimportant,this»dialecticofdevelopment,doesnotrelateonlytobeinginthekingdomofspace,innature,butalsotobeinginthekingdomofmindandtohistoryinthekingdomoftime.«(Osuský2013,196‒197)Humans,asthinkingbeings,reacttowhatisgoingonaroundtheminthehistoricalworldinasubjectivemanner,astheyare»determinedbynaturalandhistoricalimpres-sionsandby[their]subjectiveelements.«(198)

Inits»reactionpsychology,«Bolshevismwishestocreateapsychologywhichwouldfitinlinewiththeabove-describedviewofreality(determinedmateriali-sticallyanddialectically).Knowledgearisesfrompraxisandistestedinpraxisforitsvalidity.Ifitcanbeusedtothebenefitoftheproletariat,itassumesthestatusofa»trueknowledge,«ifnot,thenitisrejectedasimpracticalandhence»un-true.«TheBolsheviksareonlyinterestedin»productive«(i.e.,economicallyandpoliticallypractical,useful)scientificknowledge.»Thereisnoabsolutetruth,truthiswhatdevelopmentdemandsandprovesitselfinthepraxisoftheproletariat.«(Osuský2013,198‒199)107F

14TheBolshevisticphilosophyofhistorydrawsfromthereactionpsychologyconceptualizedinthismanner.Fromthisfollowsthat»inhi-storythebasic,motorforceofhistoryismatter,i.e.economicinterest.Thehumanbeingistheproductofeconomicrelations.Theideadoesnotformrelations,butrelationsformtheidea.Everythingideological-politics,laws,morality,philosophy,religion-everythingisonlyareflection,reflex,superstructureoftheeconomic.«(199)Allofhistorycanbe(and,indeed,mustbe)seenthroughtheprismofthestruggleofeconomicclasses,whichhasaprogressivecharacter,justastheDarwi-nianevolutioninthesphereofbiology.Thisevolutionaryprocess,however,doesnotprogresswithouttensionsandtemporarysetbacks.Nevertheless,whenthesituationisripeintheindustrialsocietiesoftheWest,followingagrowingaliena-tionoftheworkingclassfromthefruitsofitslabor(orwhenthewar-strickenRussianfeudalsocietyisclosetocollapsing),aproletariatrevolutionwillachievethenextstageofdevelopment.»Thegoalisthedestructionofclasses,aclasslesssocietybymeansofthedictatorshipoftheproletariat.Theindividualisonlyanatomofthetotal-collectiveproletariat.«(199)OsuskýnoticesthattheRussiancommunistswerenotabletoachieveasocietyofpurecollectivepropertybutthattheyinsteadhadtoreverttoapartialownershipofpropertyundertheNEP(Lenin’sNewEconomicPolicyof1921).

ButOsuský’smajorcriticismdoesnotfocusontheBolshevisticeconomicideas;heratherfocusesonreligionandethics.Heisverytroubledbytheirnewdefinitionofmorality–»Moralityiswhatservestheproletariat.Goodiswhatisprofitabletotheproletariat.Eviliswhatisnotprofitabletotheproletariat./…/Therearenoabsolutemoralnames,asthereisnoabsolutetruth.«Christianmoralitymayhavehelpedexploitedpeopleforatime,butitalsocomplicatedandsloweddowntheinevitablesocialprogressbydelayingthecomingrevolution.InRussia,anewKing-domisbeingbuilt,»thekingdomoftheproletariat.«»Communismwiththeorga-nizationoftheproletariatactualizesthekingdomoftheproletariansandofequa-

14 OsuskýseesasurprisingaffinityofthisreasoningwithAmericanPragmatism.

779

lity.«Especiallytroublesome,accordingtoOsuský,istheprincipleaccordingtowhich»everythingandanythingthatservesthisgoalisgoodandpermitted.Look!Theendsanctifiesthemeans!«(Osuský2013,200)Thecollectivethusswallowsuptheindividual.Humandignityissecondary.Infact,itisonlyfullyattributedtothecollectiveoftheproletariat.Humanindividualrightsaretentative;theyareonlytobeupheldifitsuitsthedevelopmentofthecollectivetowardatrulyclas-slesssocietyofequals.Furthermore,asOsuskýinsightfullyobserves,Bolshevismischaracteristicofitsvoluntarism:»toknowthenecessaryisneedful,sothatweknowwhatispossibleandtoactnecessarilyaccordingtotheknowledgeofwhatispossible.Therefore,thephilosophyofBolshevismcanbecalledalsothephilo-sophyofthewill,voluntarism,action,activity.«(201)However,suchvoluntaristicactivism,whichiswillfullyblindtonormativemoralprinciplesandvalues,isboundtoleadtohumanitariancatastrophes.OsuskýpredictedthisatatimewhenEuro-pewasstillunawareoftheexistenceoftheRussiandeathcamps,thegulags.Hecouldpropheticallyseethatablind,fanaticalfaithintheparadisepromisedtobeusheredbythe»dictatorshipoftheproletariat«(liberated,allegedly,bycommunistpropaganda)wouldnecessarilyyieldbitterfruitsforcountlessvictims.

5. ConclusionOsuskýoffersthefollowingsummaryofwhytheChristiansmustrejectextremeide-ologiesonbothsidesofthespectrum:wemustrejectBolshevismforreligiousreasonbecauseitisatheisticandmaterialistic;HitlerismfromaChristianperspectivebeca-useitisnaturalisticandthoroughlyevil.108F

15WemustrejecttheterrorofFascisminanyhiddenformsbecauseofitsnegationofindividualfreedomsanddignityofthehumanbeing.WemustnotreceiveanyoftheseeitherasChristians,orLutherans.ThelastsentencesofOsuský’slecturecarryanemphaticappealtohislistenersand,indeed,tonextgenerationsofChristiansinCzechoslovakiaandbeyond:

»[T]hemethod,terror,thedenialofindividualfreedom,wecannotacceptneitherasChristiansnorasLutherans,andHitlerismwecannotaccepteitherasSlavs.IhaveexpressedmyastonishmentathowanyonefromtheranksoftheLutheranscouldagreewithfascism,andnolessastonishmentdoIexpresshowanyonefromtheSlovakLutheranscouldsympathize,preach,andwritesympatheticallyaboutthephilosophyofHitlerism.«(Osuský2013,220)

ConcurringwithPaulHinlicky’s(2016)recentanalysisofOsuský’slegacy,wewishtoliftupthefollowingthreeassetsnativetoOsuský’spersonalityasanin-

15 ForanincisivecriticalstudyofNazismandStalinism,perceivedthroughtheexistentialistperspectiveofKierkegaard,seeBojanŽalec’s(2014)studyonNazismandStalinismintheLightofKierkegaard’sThought. InspiredbyBellinger’sinterpretation,Žalecintroduces»HitlerandNazismasanextremepathologicalexampleoftheaestheticstageandanxietybeforethegood,andStalinismasanextremepathologicalexampleoftheethicalstageandanxietybeforetheevil«(Žalec2014,443).



tellectual,philosopher,andtheologian:(1)Osuský’suseofcriticalthinking,acom-petencehewasabletoenhancebystudyingphilosophy,wasremarkableinanageofmassivepropagandaandrelativelyscarceaccesstoinformation;(2)theabilitytodrawfromhisowntheologicalheritageagainstthebackgroundofwhi-chwemanagedtorevealthepseudo-religious,idolatrouscharacteroftheseide-ologies;(3)theresolvetoactethicallywhenOsuskýformulatedhispropheticwarningsagainstevilthathadpermeatedtheEuropeanandSlovaksocieties.Hedidnotshyawayfromtheethicalresponsibilityhefeltasapublictheologian-phi-losopherwhovaluedhisheritage,whilestayingopentocriticalreflectionofevenhisownchurch.HisvoicewasimportantinkeepingtheProtestantminorityinSlovakiaoverwhelminglyagainsttheideologyofFascism.Ontheotherhand,hiswarningagainsttheideologyofBolshevismwasonlypartiallyheededafterWWII.Thehorrorsofwarandthegeopoliticalpressurecomingfromoneofthevictori-ouspowers,theSovietUnion,influencedmanyLutheranintellectualsandpastorsintobelievinginthecommunistpromiseofasocialparadise.ButOsuský’svoicecouldnotbeignoredandwaswellrespectedevenaftertheWWIIandthe1948communistrevolutioninCzechoslovakia.Hewasoneofthefirstleadingfiguresofthechurchtobeofficiallysilenced,ashislicensetoteachattheSlovakLuthe-ranTheologicalFacultywasremovedswiftlyaftertherevolutionin1948.Osuskýwasforcedintoanearlyretirementandforbiddentoteachorspeakpubliclyun-tilhediedin1975.

Weproposethefollowingobservations/lessonsthatwecanlearnagainstthebackgroundofOsuský’sstrugglewithtotalitarianism.(1)Faultyanthropologicalstartingpoints(presuppositions)willinevitablyleadtodesperatesolutionsboth,ontheindividualaswellassocio-politicallevels.(Tagirov2019,1231)

109F

16Theper-vasivechaosofthegreedyhumanheart(whichChristiantheologycallsthestateof»sinfulness«)engendersinjustice,insecurity,anger(amongotherthings),butalsoadesireforstabilityand/orequality(perceivedas»justice«)atanycost.Attherootoftheunyieldingtendencyofhumansocietiestoascribeblametoexter-nal»enemies«–whetherthesebetheJews,aswehaveseenintheracialvariantofFascism(theGermanNazism),orthekulaksandbourgeoisie,aswehaveseenintheBolshevistrevolutionandsubsequentCommunisttotalitarianregimesinCentralandEasternEuropeafterWWII–isthefrivolousdenialofthecommonhumanpredicamentof»depravity,«aninneralienationandintrinsicself-cente-redness of the human self.

Weseethismalignantexternalizationoftheroot-probleminFascism,Hitlerism,aswellasCommunism.(Savelveva2017)Inthemwefindtheunjustifiedconvictionthat»wecanbuildahappy,prosperousandjustsocietyifwedefeat(orannihilate)theenemiesofournationorinterestgroup(Fascism),theenemiesofourrace(Hi-

16 TomášPružinec(2019,147)correctlyremindsusthat»oneofthemostimportantthemes,«whichhasbeen»reflectedinsectors[such]aseducationofcitizens,theirfreedom,justice,publicactivity…wastheconceptofman(ὁάνθρωπος)asaperson(τόπρόσωπον),«withhis/herinalienabledignityandvalue.Uponthisfoundationwemaynowbuildourcommonhouse(oikonomia)ofEuropewithitsdi-verse cultures, ideologies, and religions.

781

tlerism),theenemiesofourclass(Communism).«Whatisworse,wemaysuspectthesametypeofexternalization,thoughnotyetwiththesamedireconsequences,inthemodernLiberalism’spresuppositionoftheblameless,neutralhumanselfthatneedsonlytobeeducated»properly«andsituatedintoabalanced,socio-economicenvironmenttothriveandactpro-socially/altruistically.Thisshouldthen,allegedly,leadustobelievethatweneedtogetridofsomeofouroutdatedtraditions(inclu-dingthereligiousones)andsurrendertheshapingofthesocietytoself-proclaimed,enlightenedsocialengineerswiththeabilitytomoldhumancharactersthroughtheirnewly-engineeredsocialstructures,educationalreforms,andstateinstitutions.Weseemtosufferfromthisirresistibletendencytoprojecttheresponsibilityfortheexistinginjusticeandsufferingonexternalcausesinordertodivertattentionfromourown,wounded,imperfect,failing,selfishself.

(2)Inourattemptstosaveoursocietiesandthewellbeing,towhichwebelie-vetobeentitled,wethentendtoidealizethestateasthebearerofstabilityandjustice(inwhateverwaywemayperceiveit).Itisrevealingtonoticethatthiskindofidealizationandabsolutizationofthestateisintrinsictoideologiesonbothsi-desofthespectrum,rightandleft.Thechaosofthegreedyhumanheart,unlea-shedwithanewforceinthelaissez-faircapitalismattheturnofthecenturies(19th‒20thcenturies),madeitattractiveforacriticalmassofpeopletohandtheirfates(andmanyoftheirbasicrights)overtotheirnewleaderswhobegantobeseenaspoliticalmessiahs,suchasMussolini,Hitler,Lenin,Stalinandothers.(Oborskyetal.2018)Thechaosofthegreedyheartasexemplifiedhereincludes,naturally,theunjustworldorderofWesternimperialismandcolonialismofthe19th and 20thcenturies.This,alongwiththewoundednationalprideanddignityoftheGermansasanation,constitutedafertilegroundfortheemergenceofaFuehrerwhowouldrideonthewaveofresentmentandanger,makingitsnationcommitcrimesofunimaginableproportions.

Anewconceptionofsovereigntyemergedwiththesenewleaders.Beneathitsnewveil,»sovereigntyontheearthappearsasthepowertoreducehumanlifetobarelife,lifethatcannotberedeemed,lifethatisutterlybanishedinandbysovereignty'sveryassertionofdominioninthenameofProvidence,oflawandorder.«(Adkins-Hinlicky2013,203)Justiceasanobjectivereality,orevenasanobjectivetobepursued,isnolongerrecognizedbecauseitis»completelysubor-dinatedtotheallegedneedsandinterestsoftheVolk.«EncyclopaediaBritannica2019,https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism)AsAdkinsandHinlicky(2013,203)provokinglyargue,theregimesbuiltuponthisnewconceptionofsovereign-tyareessentiallybiopolitical,havingits»essencerevealedintheextremitiesoftheconcentrationcampsoftheNazisortheGulagoftheSoviets.«Butwhatisevenmoredisturbingisthatwecantracevestigesofthiskindthinkinganditsmalignantmanifestations»intherefugeesoftodaywhoareturnedaway,sincetheyaremerely»human«;just»bare«life,notcitizensofourcityundercontractwithpoliticalsovereignty.«(203)Ourresponsibilitytothehumanracethuscol-lapsesunderourperceivedresponsibilitytothewellbeingandprotectionofournation/country.Howmuchdifferent is this from20th century Fascism and



Bolshevism? 110F

17Andwhatroledomediaplaytodayintheshapingofourattitudestothosedivestedoftheirdignityaspresent-daymigrants?»Theinformativere-flectionoftheseprocesses[i.e.modelsofrepresentationthroughmedia] 111F

18 is, in additiontoanalwayspartialandideologicalrepresentationofrealityitself,partofthesocialconstructionthatisconsolidatedastruthinourlearningprocess.Thestereotypeintheperceptionandconsiderationofmigrantsisoneoftherisksthatcanprovokeandconsolidateinequalityinmanycountriesoftheworld.«(Marfil--Carmona–Ortiz-Cobo2019,192)

(3)Someblameandresponsibilityforthehorrorsofthe20th century ought to be ascribedcriticallytoChristianliberaltheology,especiallytheliberalProtestantthe-ology of the 19th century. This is not to deny the fact that »religious based commu-nitiesandinstitutionsplayedasignificantroleincultivatingboth,thediscontentwiththeregimeaswellasthecourageandresolveofthepopulationtostanduptoit,«(Šturák2016,39);nevertheless,theso-called»Kultur-Protestantismus«112F

19 see-medtohavesharedsomeanthropologicalpresuppositionswiththelaterpoliticalproponentsofthetotalitarianideologiesunderscrutiny.Wearespeakinghereofthebeliefinaninevitablehumanprogress–scientific,technological,aswellascul-turalandmoral–aspartofalinearprogressofthehistoryoftheworld,drivenbytheforcesofnatural-biological,aswellasspiritualevolution(GeistEntwicklung).Duringthistime,humblenotionsofhumanlimitednessanddepravitywererepla-cedwithromanticizednotionsofhumanintrinsicgoodnessandthearrogantbeliefinthehumanpowertousheranew»kingdomofgod«throughhumancultureandtechnology.Theensuingfutileattemptstostrictlydetachmodern(andpostmodern)politicsfromreligion,believingthatsuchseparationguaranteespurityandobjecti-venessofthepoliticalproject,forgetthat»thedepthoriginsofpoliticsandviolen-ceareof(anti)religiousand(anti)spiritualnaturerespectively,«aswecouldalsowitnessthatthephenomenaofNazismandStalinism(Bolshevism)werenotonlypolitical,butalso»stronglyreligiouslymarkedphenomena.«(Žalec2014,449)

WeintheWest,tobesure,arenolongerdreamingtheEnlightenment’sdreamofaninevitableprogressoftheeducated,scientificallyadvancedhumanity(Am-

17 BesidesofferingadetailedanalysisofFascism,RobertPaxtonasksanunsettlingquestion:»IsFascismover,orcoulditriseagain?«HepointsouttherecentdevelopmentsinEurope,whichcausehimtobeskepticalofrelegatingFascismtotheannalsofhistory:»ethniccleansingintheBalkans;thesharpeningofexclusionarynationalismsinpostcommunisteasternEurope;spreading›skinhead‹violenceagainstimmigrantsinBritain,Germany,Scandinavia,andItaly;thefirstparticipationofaneofascistpartyinaEuropeangovernmentin1994,whentheItalianAlleanzaNazionale,directdescendantoftheprincipalItalianneofascistparty,theMovimentoSocialeItaliano(MSI),joinedthefirstgovernmentofSilvioBerlusconi;theentryofJörgHaider’sFreiheitspartei(FreedomParty),withitswinksofapprovalatNaziveterans,intotheAustriangovernmentinFebruary2000;theastonishingarrivaloftheleaderoftheFrenchfarRight,Jean-MarieLePen,insecondplaceinthefirstroundoftheFrenchpresidentialelec-tionsinMay2002;andthemeteoricriseofananti-immigrantbutnonconformistoutsider,PymFortuyn,intheNetherlandsinthesamemonth.«(Paxton2004,173).

18 Formoreonthepowerfulinfluenceofthemediaontheconstructionofsocialreality(asperceivedpredominantlybytheyouth),see:(Tyurikovetal.2018;Zheltukhinaetal.2017).

19 ThefirstpresidentofCzechoslovakia,TomášGariggueMasaryk,seemedtohaveadoptedthiskindofreligiousoutlookaswell,believingthat»religionshouldfocusonmorality,asopposedtomiracles,ri-tual,andthenotionthattheChurchactedasanintermediarybetweenGodandman«(Šmid2017,73).

783

brozy-Králik-Martin2017;Omarovaetal.2018).Ourburdenisrathertheinsidi-ousindifferenceinthematteroftruth(Máhrik2018,46‒47)–afterall,weliketothinktheweliveinapost-truth(post-factual)realitywherenothingandnoonecanbetrusted.(Orekhovskayaetal.2018)Butisnotthisself-imposedindifferen-ceinthematteroftruthamajorfeatureoftheFascistandCommunistideologies?Andevenifthissimilarityinourattitudetotruthprovedtobehistoricallyinciden-tal,thesimilarityofpossibleconsequencesshouldbeequallyhauntingandexi-stentiallyunsettling.(Pavlíková2018)Uponcloserscrutinywecanestablishthat»thecharacteristicsofMachiavellianismandmanipulation(indirect,hiddenandimplicitinfluence,deception,disregardofmoralandethicalnormsandsocialandculturalvalues,focusondomination,control,coercion,useofforce,useoftheotherasthings,objects,programmingofthoughts,intentions,etc.)/…/[increa-singlybecome]thefeaturesofpublicadministrationsphere«today.(Ibragimovetal.2018,404)Weneedtocultivateourawarenessoftheambivalentnatureof»securitizationasasociallyproductivespeechactthatlegitimizespoliticianstoimposeurgentmeasurestoneutralize»existentialthreats«(whetherrealorma-nifest),whileallowingthem[i.e.politicians]toignoreexistingrulesandprocedu-res.«Dependingonhowthesecuritizingactorlivesuptohisresponsibilitytochoosethelanguagemeansandmeaningsofspeechacts,thesocio-politicaldis-coursewill»leadtoanincreaseinaggressionor,onthecontrary,togreatertole-rance.«(Dulebová-Štefančík2017,59)

1 1 3F

20Socialscientistswarnthatthereisanacuteneedto»bringtheprocessofsocialadaptationandsocializationof/…/people[especiallyadolescents]backtothenormalstate,thusreducingtheriskofdestructivetendencies.«(Galushkinetal.2018,106)Withregardtotheongo-ingimmigrationcrisisinEuropeandglobally,»anacuteproblemofavoidingeth-nicandinter-confessionalconflictrisks,anderosionofnationalandcivicidentityasaresultofglobalization«needstobedealtwithprudently.(Ryabchenkoetal.2018,359)However,the

»taskofdeterminingtheconditionsthatcouldbringtotheregenerationofinterethniccommunication/…/nowconsideredthemostimportantstrategyforensuringcivilizationalsecurity«cannotbefulfilledwithout»knowledgerelatedtoculturalcharacteristics,nationaltraditions,customsandhistoryofdifferentnationsthatisessentialinbuildingacognitiveba-sisfordevelopingrespectfulrelationstoothernationalculturesandtheirrepresentatives.«(Sereginaetal.2019,186)

However,followingOsuský’sadvice,wewillbeabletodononeoftheabovecompetentlyunlesswelearntorecoveranddrawfromourownculturalandre-ligioustraditions,unifyingthereligious,philosophical,andpoliticaldiscoursesinto

20 AmbrozyandSagat(2019,225)rightlyproposethat,insteadofhidingbehindtheslogansofobjectivity,neutrality,andrelativity,»incloseaccordancewiththeprincipleofphilosophical-methodologicalskep-ticism,ateacherofphilosophy[and,wemayadd,politicalscience,theology,andotherrelatedfields]mayassumeacriticalstancetowardsthosephilosophicalpositionswhichareaprioriaimedatcertaingroupsofpeople,anddegradethemtoameanstoanend.«



oneintegrativewhole.Thepointisnottogetridofinherenttensionsinsuchdi-scourse;theaimis,rather,tomanagesuchtensionsconstructivelyasweprotectthepublicspacefromabsolutizingandmanipulativetendenciesfromthesideofallactors:religious,scientific,economic,cultural,aswellaspolitical.Christianpublictheologyhasmuchtocontributeinthisprocess.114F

21

References

21 AsBinettiandPavlíková(2019,192)reminduspertainingtheissueofsociallysituatedfreedom,»thedeepestintentionoffreebecomingispersonalidentitythatdoesnotremainasamereunattainableendbuthasitsconcretefulfilmentinthepresence of the self before God and alongside others, through the unifying force of love.«

Adkins, Brent, and Paul R. Hinlicky. 2013. Rethin-king philosophy and theology with Deleuze: A new cartography.A&CBlack.

Ambrozy, Marian, Roman Kralik and Jose Garcia Martin. 2017. Determinism vs freedom: Some ethics-socialimplications.XLinguae 10, no. 4:48–57.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2017.10.04.05

Ambrozy, Marian, and Peter Sagat.2019.Axiolo-gicalaspectinthecontextofteachingphilo-sophy. XLinguae12,no.3:218–227.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2019.12.03.16

Binetti, Maria, and Martina Pavlíková. 2019. Kierkegaardonthereconciliationofconscien-ce. XLinguae12,no.3:192–200.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2019.12.03.14

Dulebová, Irina, and Radoslav Štefančík. 2017. SecuritizationtheoryoftheCopenhagenschoolfromtheperspectiveofdiscourseanalysisandpoliticallinguistics. XLinguae 10, no.2:51–62.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2017.10.02.05

Ekpunoby, Anthony.2018.CreativerenunciationoftheWilltoViolence.Bogoslovni vestnik78,no.2:473–481.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2019. »Nazism.« March 15,2019.https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism(accessedApril04,2019).

Galushkin, Alexander A., Valeriy I. Prasolov, Anvar N. Khuziakhmetov, Zhanna M. Sizova and Irina V. Vasenina.2018.Aggressivenessand social aggression in the youth enviro-nment:philosophicalandpsychologicalfieldofinterpretation.XLinguae 11, no. 2:106–119. https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.02.09

Gažík, Peter. 2012. Samuel Štefan Osuský: Moder-ný filozof náboženstva. Žilina:EDIS.

Hinlicky, Paul R. 2016. Between Humanist Philo-sophy and Apocalyptic Theology: The Twentieth Century Sojourn of Samuel Stefan Osuský.

London–NewYork:T&TClark.https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567669643

Hinlicky, Paul R. 2013. Before Auschwitz: What Christian theology must learn from the rise of Nazism.Eugene,OR:WipfandStockPublis-hers.

Hitler, Adolf. 1936. Mein Kampf.Trans.Dr.Franti-sekBauer.Prague:Orbis.

Ibragimov, Ibragim D., Badma V. Sangadzhiev, Sergey N. Kashurnikov, Ivan A. Sharonov and Julia A. Krokhina.2018.Machiavellianismandmanipulation:fromsocialphilosophytosocialpsychology.XLinguae 11, no. 2:404–419. https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.02.33

Malmenvall, Simon.2017.Viskanjuidejnihpred-pogojevzauspehboljševiškeoktobrskerevolu-cije[TheQuestforIdeationalPreconditionstotheSuccessoftheOctoberBolshevikRevoluti-on]. Bogoslovni vestnik77,no.3/4:671–678.

Máhrik, Tibor.2018.Truthasthekeymetaethicalcategory in Kierkegaard. XLinguae 11, no. 1:40–48.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.01.04

Marfil-Carmona, Rafael, and Monica Ortiz-Cobo. 2019.Socialandphilosophicalrepresentationof the immigrant in the media. XLinguae 12, no.1:192–206.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2019.12.01.15

Olexák, Peter.2018.KatolíckykňazFloriánTo-mánekvStraneslobo dy(1946–1947).Historia Ecclesiastica 9,no.1:155–172.

Oborsky, Alexey Yu., Alexey A. Chistyakov, Alex-ey I. Prokopyev, Stanislav V. Nikolyukin, Kirill A. Chistyakov and Larisa I. Tararina.2018.Thenationalmentalityinthehistoryofphilosophy.XLinguae11,no.3:158–165.

Omarova, Leila B., Aydar M. Kalimullin, Ludmila Yu. Grudtsina, Andrey V. Korzhuev and Maria Ye. Zhukova.2018.Philosophicalanthropologyinpostmodernism.XLinguae11,no.3:76–85.

785

https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.03.07Orekhovskaya, Natalia A., Alexander A. Galush-

kin, Elena V. Maleko, Tatyana A. Bezenkova and Natalya A. Plugina.2018.Globalizationandyouth:philosophicalanalysisofchallengesandwaystoovercomethem. XLinguae 11, no. 2:256–164.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.02.20

Pavlíková, Martina.2018.Kierkegaard'sunder-standingofmanandsociety.2018.XLinguae 11, no. 1:323–331.

Rožič, Peter.2017.OcenaTocquevilloveanalizevplivareligijenademokracijo[AssesingTocqueville’sAnalysisoftheImpactofReligiononDemocracy].Bogoslovni vestnik 77, no. 2:261–268.

Osuský, Samuel Š. 1916. Vojna a náboženstvo. LiptovskýMikuláš:Tranoscius.

Osuský, Samuel Š.2013.ThePhilosophyofBol-shevism,Fascism,andHitlerism.In:PaulR.Hinlicky.Before Auschwitz: What Christian theology must learn from the rise of Nazism, 193–220.Eugene,OR:WipfandStockPublis-hers.

Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.

Pružinec, Tomáš. 2019. Sondy do hodnotovej platformybyzantskejfilozofieajejodkazpresúčasnúeurópskuhodnotovúorientáciu:náčrtproblematiky.Constantine’s Letters 12, no. 2:135–147.https://doi.org/10.17846/cl.2019.12.2.135-147

Ryabchenko, Oksana N., Alexey I. Prokopyev, Leonid N. Romanchenko, Andrey V. Korzhuev and Julia A. Krokhina.2018.Socialandphilo-sophicalunderstandingofnationalandcivicidentityinthecontextofinterethnicandinterreligiousconflictrisks.XLinguae 11, no. 2:359–369.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.02.29

Savelyeva, Elena B., Elena A. Lineva and Tatiana G. Yusupova.2017.AndreGide’slifephilo-sophy:»Russiantrace«. XLinguae 10, no. 3:184–201.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2017.10.03.15

Schneider, Herbert. 1929. The Making of the Fascist State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Seregina, Tatiana N., Alfiya R. Masalimova, Mu-hammet Usak, Evgeniy M. Dorozhkin and Alexander A. Galushkin.2019.Philosophicalviewontheproblemofdegradationandrege-nerationaspotentialtrendsininterethniccommunicationculture.XLinguae 12, no. 2:186–194.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2019.12.02.15

Smetáček, Zdeněk. 1933. Ideology of Italian Fasci-sm. Česká Mysl28:208–215.

Šafin, Ján.2017.Paradoxyruskéhoporevolučnéhovývoja:ŽidiaaEurázijskéhnutie.Historia Eccle-siastica 8,no.2:105–120.

Šmíd, Marek.2017.T.G.Masaryk:HisspirituallifeandhisdisputeswiththeCatholicChurch.Historia Ecclesiastica 8,no.1:58–74.

Šturák, Peter. 2016. The legacy of the Greek catholicleadingpersonalitiesandmartyrsinSlovakiaandtheircontributionforthebuildingupofafreeSlovaksociety.European Journal of Science and Theology 12,no.4:39–48.

Tagirov, Philipp. 2019. Nature, Cosmos, Absolute andSocietyintheMainAnthropologicalPara-digms. In: 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Ecological Studies (CESSES 2019),1231–1235.S.l.:AtlantisPress,2019.https://doi.org/10.2991/cesses-19.2019.274

Tavilla, Igor, Roman Kralik, Carson Webb, Xiamg-dong Jiang and Juan Manuel Aguilar. 2019. TheriseoffascismandthereformationofHegel’sdialecticintoItalianneo-idealistphilo-sophy.XLinguae12,no.1:139–150.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2019.12.01.11

Tyurikov, Aleksandr G., Nikolay N. Kosarenko, Tatiana B. Gvozdeva, Marianna V. Voronina, Elena Ye. Grishnova and Natalya A. Solovye-va.2018.Newsocialrealityinthecontextofinformationandcommunicationtechnologies.XLinguae11,no.3:37–75.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2018.11.03.06

Zheltukhina, Marina R., Natalia I. Klushina, Elena B. Ponomarenko, Natalia N. Vasilkova and Anna I. Dzyubenko. 2017. Modern media influence:massculture–massconsciousness–masscommunication.XLinguae 10, no. 4:96‒105.https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2017.10.04.09

Žalec, Bojan. 2013. Genocide as social death: A comparativeconceptualanalysis.Anthropolo-gical Notebooks19,no.2:57‒74.

– – –. 2014. Nazism and Stalinism in the light of Kierkegaard's thought. Filozofia69,no.5:443–450.

– – –.2017.Kierkegaardinpolitično:Verakotpremagovanjenasiljainvirdemokracije[Kier-kegaardandPolitical:FaithasOvercomnigofViolenceandasanOriginofDemocracy].Bogoslovni vestnik77,no.2:247–259.

– – –.2018.Verskastrpnostinkrščanstvo[Religio-usToleranceandChristianity].Bogoslovni vestnik78,no.2:325–334.


michal valčo, katarína valčová, daniel slivka, nina i

Documents