Moral Factors Decide Wars and Revolutions

In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one.

Napoleon Bonaparte

It is said that victory in war goes to the bigger battalions. But Napoleon, who was a master in the art of war, disagreed. He suggested that moral factors were more important than numbers. And what are moral factors? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the moral is “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.”

How can principles of right and wrong behavior effect the outcome of a battle? War is an exacting business, full of danger and hardship. Under such conditions, honor and integrity are highly prized. Also, a belief in the rightness of one’s cause strengthens a country’s will to resist. Napoleon pointed out that, “Victory belongs to the most persevering.” He added, “The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second….”

Consider, now, the possibility of a new kind of warfare in which an enemy, instead of launching a direct attack by armies and navies, attacks a country’s moral foundations — its moral character, its moral discipline, its heroes and its founding philosophy. Imagine an attack that seeks to “demoralize” a country on this basis; that is to say, strip it of all those moralizing factors that are — as Napoleon said — “as three is to one.”

Here is the most effective way to weaken an enemy in advance of open warfare. This is not simply a theory, but an historical reality. Think of all the subtle ways America’s moral strength has been sapped. The communists and their political allies on the “progressive” left have not only attacked traditional morality, but they have offered up a false morality, a morality that celebrates cultural and sexual suicide. They have crippled marriage as an institution. They have corrupted the courts. They have removed corporal punishment from the schools. (Then again, would you trust today’s teachers to administer discipline in loco parentis?) A wave of rule breaking now coincides with a regime of unprecedented permissiveness. Contracts are not held sacred, honesty is no longer prized as it once was. Employees steal from their employers. Good manners are gone as entertainers commit violent assaults after which they are given awards and standing ovations. In Washington, D.C., the laws are enforced against one party and not another. This is the malaise that grips all Western countries, and it is no accident.

The worldwide communist movement stands at the center of our demoralization. The communists advocate a new kind of morality, which has little regard for honesty, respect for property, family, God or country. Their new morality is anti-racism, universal equality, concern for “the planet,” the championing of sexual deviancy, abortion tending toward infanticide, the redistribution of wealth, and unilateral American disarmament. If someone disagrees with these new ideals, they are trash. And as the left’s revolution advances, the trash is “taken out.”

Through all the confusing rhetoric and mock moralizing about race and gender, we must never lose sight of the communist bloc’s military end-game. There is a strategic method at work behind the communist attack on our morality. If you demoralize a country prior to war, victory is made easier. Therefore, morality in the West has not been attacked for its own sake. It was attacked to smooth the path to victory for the world’s largest country (Russia) and the world’s most populous country (China). What almost nobody has grasped is that these two countries are working together; and they have been working together for a long time with a communist fifth column.

We also find several smaller countries working with Russia and China that are also heavily armed — like North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Angola, Congo, Syria and Iran. Consider, as well, mineral-rich South Africa. The communist bloc is dominant in strategic minerals, oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and nuclear weapons. Yet none of these resources matter if there are no operative moral factors.

The moral decline of a people may be traced out in the moral decline of its leaders. If the United States Congress, once described by Mark Twain as America’s “distinctly native … criminal class,” is now so demoralized that it is as likely to pass laws to destroy the country as to defend it, then what kind of people have we become? Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration need only look at the House majority’s readiness to let our nuclear deterrent collapse for want of appropriate funding, or the federal government’s disregard for border security.

This may be a simplification, as many factors were at work, but: – Within our very souls, our spiritual flanks were turned long ago; for the real war has been raging in the human heart and mind. This is the war we have been losing, the war that plays out prior to the advent of tanks and jets and missiles and nuclear bombs. We have opened a causeway into pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. The dark side of human nature is always evident during a period of decline, during a period of materialism. Think of what a little pink worm will do on a warm day with a cold carcass.

The war that has begun in Eastern Europe has surprised many observers. But the greatest surprise is the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians, who partake of moral factors that the Russian side lacks. One hears the moralizing of Americans who say that Russian prisoners have been murdered or tortured by the Ukrainian side. Such incidents, as regrettable as they are, and as inexcusable, do not unmake the larger moral ledger. Ukraine is fighting for her existence. And this is the same moral position occupied by Finland during the Winter War, or Britain during the blitz, or the Russians from 1941-1943.

“In war,” said Napoleon, “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” The so-called miracle of Ukraine’s defense against Russia is not a function of Russian incompetence. The so-called miracle in Ukraine is a function of moral factors which lie at the root of the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.

I have said before that the Russians, if they persevere, will probably break the Ukrainian defense when the ground is dry. Yet Russia must now endure a war of attrition for eight to ten weeks. Does the Russian Army possess the stamina for this? Does Russia possess the necessary moral factors? Despite all that we have heard on television, the Russian troops might prove more resilient than we imagine. Only time will tell. The most important and frequently used method in war, said Carl von Clausewitz, “is to wear down the enemy. That expression is more than a label; it describes the process precisely, and is not so metaphorical as it may seem at first. Wearing down the enemy in a conflict means using the duration of the war to bring about a gradual exhaustion of his physical and moral resistance.” [Book One, Chapter Two]

Only time will tell.

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


The Subversion of the Not-So-Innocent

If Western democracies collaborate with the KGB regime long enough, they are at risk of degrading to the level of backward and corrupt Russia. Western countries can simply lose their democratic political systems to the Mafia, leaving their citizens defenseless in front of that mortal danger.

Alexander Litvinenko, “Allegations,” p. 204

How do we understand the treason of our elites? The fact is, our elites have been compromised by their longstanding partnerships with Moscow and Beijing. The sudden flip of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, almost a decade ago, along with the Democratic Party, toward anti-Russian declamations, should not be taken at face value. There are understandings and relationships hidden from public view. A double game has been played by our “progressives” and those heavily invested in China. Some of them are undoubtedly in shock, at seeing the outbreak of war in eastern Europe. Others are staying the course because they actually believe in socialism and trust in their Chinese “friends.” Some readers may wonder what I am referring to. Let’s take a page from history and reconsider where we have arrived.

Read more

Notes on the Ukraine War: Plus, Trevor Loudon Discusses the Mass Line Narrative of the Day

Since the Spring of 1988 … the Western consensus of Sovietological opinion has become an automaton intolerant of dissent, even as public debate on the subject has narrowed. The pronouncements of veteran ‘anti-communists,’ once against disoriented by ideological change in Moscow, are a tangle of self-contradiction and self-deception.

Andrei Navrozov, 1991

The more things change, the more they stay the same. And so, confusion reigns again. Navrozov’s brilliant little book, The Coming Order, fell on deaf ears in 1991. In Chronicles Magazine, Arnold Beichman reviewed and debunked Navrozov with a self-satisfied and stupid polemic. In the spring of 1992, I spoke briefly about Beichman’s hit-piece and Navrozov’s book with Patrick J. Buchanan. He responded by saying that he thought Beichman had put Navrozov in his place. I begged to differ. There was something to what Navrozov was saying, I told him. Buchanan’s parting remark was, “Good luck with that.”

Read more

Ukraine and Communism: A Discussion With Trevor Loudon

Everyone left and no one returned
Only, true to the promise of love,
My latest, at least you looked back
To see the whole sky in blood.
The house was cursed, and cursed was my trade;
Uselessly, a tender song rang out
And I didn’t dare raise my eyes
To my terrible fate.
They defiled the immaculate Word,
They trampled the sacred utterance,
So that with the sicknurses of Thirty-seven
I could mop the bloody floor.
They separated me from my only son,
They tortured my friends in prisons,
They surrounded me with an invisible Stockade
Of well-coordinated shadowing.
They rewarded me with muteness
That curses the whole cursed world,
They force-fed me with scandal,
They made me drink poison.
And taking me to the very edge,
For some reason they left me there.
I would rather, as one of the city’s ‘crazies,’
Be wandering through the dying squares.

Anna Akhmatova

Such were the sad words of Anna Akhmatova, with her references to ’37 (the Stalin purges), describing her own “terrible fate,” to suffer without being killed herself, to see the “whole sky in blood,” to witness the Stalin regime’s many crimes, taking her to the very edge. And here we are again. The real abomination is that almost nobody sees. They refuse to look. Militantly, self-righteously, with scorn for those of us who can see. Who see through the eyes of Akhmatova.

Read more

The Abolition of Humanity

Four reformers met under a bramble bush. They were all agreed that the world must be changed. ‘We must abolish property,’ said one.
‘We must abolish Marriage,’ said the second.
‘We must abolish God,’ said the third.
‘I wish we could abolish work,’ said the fourth.
‘Do not let us get beyond practical politics,’ said the first. ‘The first thing is to reduce men to a common level.’
‘The first thing,’ said the second, ‘ is to give freedom to the sexes.’
‘The first thing,’ said the third, ‘is to find out how to do it.’
‘The first step,’ said the first, ‘is to abolish the Bible.’
‘The first thing,’ said the second, is to abolish the laws.’
‘The first thing,’ said the third, ‘is to abolish mankind.’

Robert Louis Stevenson, “The Four Reformers”


What a devil wants, in the greater scheme of things, is to destroy. There is, in the cosmos, a creative principle. There is, opposing it, a destructive principle. Thus we find, two opposing tendencies behind everything. And you cannot have one without the other. Look at the policies of any leader and ask if these policies tend towards creation or destruction. Will his policies bring prosperity or bankruptcy? Will they bring peace or war?

Read more

An American Plot

…in February 2014, Putin’s ‘little green men’ … seized control of Ukraine’s Crimea. Consistent with Putin’s information warfare doctrine, several days prior to the invasion, Russian intelligence services … leaked a private telephone call between Assistant Secretary of State for Russian and European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two U.S. diplomats in the intercepted phone call discussed who would be the best candidate among the top opposition figures, to replace the ousted pro-Russia president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich.

Rebekah Koffler, DIA officer[i]

Nothing in the Nuland-Pyatt conversation proves that American officials orchestrated the Euromaidan Revolution. In fact, with all the resources available to Russian intelligence you would think Moscow could have come up with something more substantial than a diplomatic non sequitur. Yet many Americans, convinced of the wickedness of their own country, have treated the Nuland-Pyatt conversation as proof that America stole Ukraine from Russia (as if Ukraine is an easy country to take over).

Read more