*I don't think its as good as the last one, but I felt like I had to push through and get it out or else I would never do it.
Why Active Measures Pursues Demoralization
Socialism is an emergent property of immorality.
It may seem strange that those who cry loudest for freedom, whether it be for immigrant, gay, or religious freedom, work to take freedom away. It may also seem equally paradoxical that the same people who are ostensibly working towards a better future endorse and pursue every immoral permutation as policy. Stranger still it may appear that all the contrary religions, creeds, vices and identities all more or less work together in these goals.
This essay, which is the third part in the economic series, is a little different than the previous two. In this essay we will dive into the more metaphysical reality of what are freedoms, rights, how morality interplays with both, and how socialism emerges from immorality.
Firstly, we will need to understand a couple key concepts:
Active Measures - Active measures is the process by which communism molds the culture of a country. Through information dominance communists work to change the culture of a host country and alter the thought architecture of individuals so that socialism ideas are valued and socialism is accepted. Active measures may be thought of as communist spiritual warfare.
An example of active measures is why so many people feel good about seeing multiculturalism. Why when a minority is placed in a position of power, historically had by white people, does it engender such positive feelings? In a race-blind society it shouldn’t matter. Could it be that when young children are forming their minds they watch TV? That TV kids shows have the hero’s work as a multicultural group to defeat white homogenous villains? That the happy music is played at key intervals to reinforce the multiculturalism and the bad music is played when the villains show their homogeneity? That then these ideas are constantly reinforced throughout life by television, movies, music, school, and social media? It should be no surprise that the idea of multiculturalism and minority supremacy has been incorporated into the thought architecture, or unconscious, of so many people when such an effort has been made to program it in.
Demoralization: The definition of demoralization is most commonly to lose confidence, motivation and hope, however there is a deeper etymological meaning which is to corrupt and subvert morals, or simply to do away with them. This is the purpose behind active measures, it is the purpose because socialism is the emergent property of immorality
Emergent Property- An emergent property is something which comes about from a number of parts of factors but cannot be found in any one of the parts or factors. Think of emergent property like the phrase: “the whole is greater than the parts,” where the idea of the whole cannot be seen in any of its constituent parts. An example of an emergent property is that beauty can emerge from a painting but cannot be attributed to any brush stroke or color. Likewise, order can emerge from organizing a shelf of canned goods, but order cannot be tied to any one can being placed in any one location.
Morality- Morality is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Something which one does that is right, or good, is considered moral. Likewise, something which one does that is wrong, or evil is immoral. Morality can be further divided into two parts Natural law and divine law. Natural law is what we know is moral by our natural reason. Divine law is what we know is moral because God has revealed it to us.
Rights
Rights may be defined as positive moral imperatives. Classically the ideas of rights were largely developed in the Middle Ages from the social contracts between the different social layers. Over time certain rights became understood to be gifts from God to men whereby men were granted divine privilege to exercise certain prerogatives to bring about a good. It is a Dogma of the Faith that God is incapable of evil and thus he does not do anything for the purpose of bringing about evil. Thus, rights may be understood as having both a license to act and a duty. So, for instance the god given right to speech entails that we use our ability to speak to express the truth, not to lie. The right to property entails the ownership and free use of a thing, but this cannot be extended to use said property in a sinful manner. Therefore, the landowner may use his land for whatever end he freely chooses so long as it does not become a nuisance or a blight.
In truth when it is said the idea of rights were developed this refers to a formulation of the idea. Since the first person people have had a general understanding of owning things, speaking their minds, ect. The metaphysical, moral and legal framework would come later
The concept of rights further evolved during ascendency of socialism to be the atheistic concept that rights are an inherent property of being human and come from our humanity, this is what is meant when someone declares something a “human right.” Human Rights do not come with duties and are transitory. For if rights come from man what man may give, man may take away.
Natural Law – The Natural law is the philosophical axiom which describes the things which we know to be right and moral by use of our reason.
Divine Law – The Divine Law are the things which are right and moral as revealed to us by God.
Active measures, the spiritual warfare communists use to attack western countries, main goal is demoralization. But what is demoralization? The colloquial definition we are used to is that it is a loss of confidence, hope, and motivation, however demoralization there is a deeper etymological meaning which is that demoralization is to corrupt and subvert morals, or simply to do away with them. While it may seem as if these are two different definitions once we recognize that morality is good action then it becomes apparent that the first definition, (the loss of confidence, hope and motivation) is merely a part of the true definition of demoralization. Demoralization then may be thought of as the pursuit of immorality.
The obvious question then becomes why does communism pursue immorality? Surely, we have been told the opposite that capitalism creates excess which then leads to immorality. We are told the success of the Pax-Romana led to the excesses and immorality of the late empire, the capitalism of the industrial era created the lavish decadent bourgeoisie. We are given such examples are the Weimar republic where the in Marxist terms the means of production found its way into the hands of the wealthy bourgeoisie whose decadence infected German society. This led to the National Socialist takeover of Germany as a reactionary movement. But wait, can it be that when we examine the dialectics that Socialism emerges out immorality?
Rights come from God and exist so that we may pursue the good. We are gifted by God a body, a soul with free will, and given the material world with which to live in. We are given these gifts so that we may give glory to God. Natural Law then tells us that we are to live our lives in this world with the freedom to use what we have been given for the purpose with which they have been given. When we use these gifts to pursue material ends this is generally referred to as the Free-market.
When we use our gifts for immoral purposes we erode the foundations of our rights, because we act to undermine the purpose for which they are given and we act contrarily to the duties which come with them. Through this subversion our rights become weakened, and the freedoms guaranteed by our rights are eroded.
This is why communism pursues demoralization as its primary goal of active measures, it is to destroy our God given rights and end our freedoms so that socialism may emerge.
As we are living within this process the transitory phenomenon are observable to us.
Rights have degenerated from the God-given rights enshrined in the constitution to the human rights enshrined in the UN charter. Human rights are “rights” declared to be inherent to man. Because Human rights are derived from man, they are inherently amoral, as man being the author of his rights is therefore also the judge of his own morality. Which is to say if man can declare he has the right to say what he wants then he may declare what he says to be right. Thus, a human right is a license to act divorced from duty. The logical consequence is ultimately that human rights arrive at the axiom coined by Alester Crowley: “do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.”
Human rights therefore lead to contradictions and absurdities. The UN lists 30 articles in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Does the human right to health, however noble, entail the right to free healthcare (Article 25)? The human right to social security entails the “right” to establish a socialized pension plan and higher taxes to pay for it (Article 22). Article 17 states that everyone has the right to own property and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of it, yet Articles 22 & 25 state that their property is to be taken away for socialism. Perhaps the most absurd is Article 26 which states that people have the right to free compulsory education:
- Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
How many degrees of separation from this is the right to attend compulsory reeducation camps?
Another aspect of human rights which has hereto not been discussed is how human rights are determined to be rights. Because rights come from man it is man that determines whether a right is a right. This is an infinite regression where a right is inherent to man because man says it is inherent to him, an ultimate chicken or egg devoid of any substantive causality. Thus, in modernity under the human rights framework, there are always new rights which are created to serve the interests of those who created them. For instance, in Canada the indigenous Siberians have declared their rights to access ancestral salmon fishing grounds supersedes the rights of Canadians to live in the houses they build a hundred years ago. Thus, we see that human rights are really not rights at all, but privileges which can be given and taken away because they lack the authority of God and the moral prerogatives that come with it. Therefore, because rights come from man what man gives man can taketh away.
Because human rights necessarily create absurdities and contradictions they must be managed by an extensive network of laws for the survival of society. This is because when a nation divorces itself from its moral foundation, then laws must supplement morality. Thus, an abundance of laws must fill the void which was once taken up by morality which cover every perturbation of human action. This becomes indistinguishable from communism where all human interaction must be managed by the state.
So, because a society no longer has the moral backstop which governs behavior laws must be enacted which governs that behavior, but because there is no longer a moral foundation to the law the laws themselves are discorded, complex, and must be formulated through often competing frameworks derived from man.
Thus, we arrive at legal system which gives permissions to act under complicated legal specificities. For instance, you can build the shed you want if you follow all the codes, hire the inspectors, pay the permits, and maybe get an environmental review, all while saying you have the right to your property. Likewise, you have the right to hire who you want, but if you do not hire minorities then you will be sued. This is because the legal framework for minority hiring laws was derived from the manmade idea that all people are equal and that racial socio-economic differences were caused by minorities not having access to equal opportunities. Thus, any derivation from target benchmarks is discrimination which must be punished.
Another example being that if your wife divorces you you will have to fight it out in court over who owes who what, who will get the kids, visitation rights, and who will pay for the kids. Courts side with the women most of the time and if you don’t pay alimony and child support you go to jail. This is because the legal framework which the family court operates under comes out of the philosophy of feminism and equality, where before it was governed by our moral social cohesion.
Most importantly because we can observe there is no moral basis to the law, there is no check to how the laws are written and enforced. Thus, laws become a construct to benefit those who write them, corruption, concentration of power, and the anarcho-tyrannical two-tiered justice system emerge. Examples are abundant in the preferential treatment of leftwing agitators, racial cases, the California train to nowhere, tech oligarchs violating labor and SEC laws, the list goes on. Recently Trump used the department of Justice to block the IRS from auditing himself.
When a country operates under an extensive amoral legal framework which enforces so many rules and regulations, concentrates power, and disenfranchises the average citizen how far away is such a system away from communism? How long until the momentum carries it there?
This phenomenon was most acutely prefigured in the Talmud, where the Jews rejected God. In His stead they supplemented the authority of the rabbis. Thus, a labyrinth of byzantine religious laws emerged which govern all things.
Economics and Communist Demoralization
Economics is the study of human behavior under conditions of scarcity. However, this is an incomplete field as economics cannot exist in a vacuum, and all human behavior will have an influence on human behavior under conditions of scarcity. As such economics must take into consideration all of human behavior, which being created, is governed by the moral law. Morality can further be defined as the difference between right and wrong.
The free-market allows us to each pursue the good with what God has given us.
Because we live in the material world governed by the laws of nature it can be said there is an objective right way to do things. For instance, if we want to eat we know we have to work the farm. This doesn’t mean that there are not multiple right ways of doing things, but that there are objectively good and bad ways. For instance, you may decide to grow corn or raise chickens and put in the required work, who is to say which is right and which is wrong? However, raising salmon in Arizona is an objectively bad idea. Likewise, we may apply this reasoning to other pursuits. You and I may disagree whether Rembrandt or Van Goh painted the better pieces and it will still remain a fact that modern art is bad. God created us all with free will and made us all unique so that in his morality which we live under we may both have different preferences which are good and still know that there are things which are not good. For instance, I could organize a room many different ways and each way would be good according to the design, however I can disorganize a room many many more ways and each way is bad.
Communism is the opposite, as it tells us what we will do because there is no God.
This is why active measures, the communist plan to subvert the free people’s of the earth pursues a program of demoralization. Its methods are to sow discord, rebelliousness, contention, a disdain for religion, and really all manner of evil and vice into all things. Communism does this to degrade and break down the individual’s belief in the divine and his ability to act upon it. As such, all things which come under the program of demoralization become ugly, discorded, and divorced from reality. When the moral foundation of society is sufficiently eroded then socialism naturally will emerge.
Two Examples
Example one: music, television, and all social media has been degraded to such an extent that it has become ugly and insane to undermine our psyche, in accordance with the thoughts of communist philosopher Theodore Adorno and Herber Marcuse:
[Twelve-tone technique] subjugates music by setting it free. The subject rules over the music by means of a rational system in order to succumb to this rational system itself….Whereas this freedom [the freedom of the composer] is achieved in its disposal over the material, it becomes a determination of the material, a determination that confronts the subject as something alien and in turn subordinates the subject to its constraints….The subject disclaims its own spontaneity by projecting onto the historical subject matter the rational experiences that it had in its confrontation with it. The operations that broke the blind domination of the sonorous material become, through a system of rules, a blind second nature. To this the subject subordinates itself in search of protection and security, despairing of being able to fulfill the music on its own. Wagner’s precept of establishing rules for oneself and then following them reveals its fateful aspect. No rule is more repressive than the one that is self-promulgated. (2)
Musical forms, even constitutive modes of musical reaction, are internalizations of social forms. Like all art, music is as much a social fact as an inner self-shaping, a self-liberation from immediate social desiderata. The freedom of art, its independence of the demands made on it, is founded on the idea of a free society and in a sense anticipates its realization (2)
(One thing has not changed, communists love self important blathering. 12 tone music is what gives order to music, here Adorno is arguing that order in music is oppressive and the revolution needs it to be disordered)
Herbert Marcuse:
"If mass communications blend together harmoniously, and often unnoticeably, art, politics, religion, and philosophy with commercials, they bring these realms of culture to their common denominator—the commodity form. The music of the soul is also the music of salesmanship.” (3)
“The truth of art lies in its power to break the monopoly of established reality to define what is real.” (3)
In modern society the media takes the role of religion, it sets the culture, defines what is right and wrong. What you watch on your television, your computer, fill the void of religious ceremony in a post-moral society. What is being sold to us is psychologically a new way of thinking which abolishes the objective and moral order to bring about communism. We can see the fruits of the demoralization of the media. People are disordered, unable to hold thoughts, cannot act in meaningful ways, and unable to articulate why. Thus, the real politics become that the people are divorced from participating in the government, in other words they no longer control their own affairs in the political sense, and they slide into serfdom. Is it any wonder that socialism has emerged?
Example two: people get confused when they see that Russia funds both the left and the right, but when we contextualize it with the demoralization program the meaning becomes clear. By supporting immoral, fringe, crazy, and gay controlled opposition Russia applies the principles of its demoralization program to undermine our social cohesion, get conservatives to support and follow immoral people and spread divisiveness and confusion everywhere. This creates a breakdown in morality from which socialism naturally emerges. So, for instance, when two streamers have a Nick Fuentes style catfight the result is a degradation of the moral constitution of the viewers, it doesn’t really matter who thinks what about how obscure Greek philosophy applies to race realism or whatever they like to talk about. Likewise what supporters of Trump need to understand is that his rampant immorality is not something that should be overlooked in the quest to Make America Great Again, his sinfulness is a feature of his communism.
One need only look around to see the demoralizing effect Trump has had. The Republican Party was once heavily influenced by the Christian Coalition, where is the Christianity now? The best we can point to is a sort of Trump Messianism. The effects are profound but have not been fully realized, there is now no opposition to socialism within either party, and the fighting is mostly over which brand it will be.
On the necessity of Morality, and the pitfalls of Libertarianism
You have been told that a free market achieves a good end, but have you ever thought that the market must be good to be free. As alluded to earlier, the free market allows us the greatest ability use what we have in order to achieve the good. If morality is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil then it goes without saying that morality implies judgement. How one judges right and wrong is directly correlated to one’s morality. With regards to the free market we judge whether an endeavor has been good or bad by the profit which it brings about. That profit is in turn directly correlated to the buyers own judgement of whether that endeavor is good or bad.
In terms of natural law our actions must follow the laws supply and demand whereby what we produce is constrained by labor, prices, energy, and physics so that our product must be both produced efficiently and still be profitable. To maximize our profits these limiting factors lead us to create systems of order and harmony which are good. Since morality can be thought of as the difference between good and evil and our judgement of it, it can be said the goodness of free market system is intrinsically linked to our own judgement of good and evil.
For instance, a moral society does not tolerate cruelty to animals, and as the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost the people want to eat good food. Therefore morality incentivizes the farmer to provide adequate welfare for his animals. This simple sentence is the synthesis of many aspects of western morality such as the right to private property, animal welfare, independence, and right to own the fruits of your labor. This is opposed to the heavily subsidized food industry of today which operates Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Within these two conflicting paradigms we see that it is morality which is responsible for the difference, and this may be applied to most if not all industries.
The real paradigm however is that the free market can only be as free as it is good. If a free market is made up of individual actors then the morality of those actors will determine how free the market is. Bad actors in a free market are bad because they do bad things. They steal, cheat, lie, spend their money on vices, create trusts, laws, corruption, regulations, monopolies, and all manner of things from which socialism emerges. The free-market does have a way to regulate this, but that mechanism is in essence morality based. We do not buy from someone if we think they cheat or lie, but that is only because we believe that cheating and lying are evil. If we call good evil and evil good then there is no free-market mechanism to regulate against bad behavior, because that behavior is no longer bad. This is why demoralization has been so successful in getting people upset over baking a cake for gays. Is it right or is it wrong to have a private bakery decide whether they can serve a customer, or is it a violation of gay people’s human rights to a cake? Only a demoralized society could fight over such an absurdity.
This is why Libertarianism is fundamentally demoralization aside from the fact that it adds chaos and degeneracy. Libertarianism has no ability to distinguish between good and evil and thus it ultimately destroys the good systems created by the free market. The maxim of Libertarianism is that you have the absolute right to do whatever you want so long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. Well, who determines whether your rights are violating mine? Without a moral framework, that is impossible. Does your right to play music infringe upon my right to not listen to music? How about 1am when I am trying to sleep am I infringing on your rights if I tell you to turn it off? Do you have the right to dump your trash into the river that I drink from like they do in India, just because I drink from the river doesn’t mean I own it right? Whenever there is social conflict without a moral system to resolve it, laws must be created or else might makes right.
Final Thoughts:
We have freedoms and rights to make the right choices, to achieve good with what is under our power to control. To describe it technically morality is the proper use of our resources, when we use our mind and our bodies towards a good end then it can be said that we acted morally. Inversely immorality is always a misuse of resources. Immorality can be stated simply as using what we have for bad ends. We use our minds to think bad thoughts, our mouths to say bad things, our bodies to commit bad acts, our time wastefully, or our property abusively. When resources are misused, they are apt to be taken away by authority under the guise of properly using them. More importantly however is that socialism is the misuse of resources thus immorality and socialism are intrinsically linked which is why I challenge anyone to find any country which has become more moral with socialism.
Final note:
It is easy for us to fall into the trap of supporting immoral people who support our causes, however the old Catholic axiom remains true: “you can’t fight Satan with Satan.” True Westernists emulate Christ to the best of their abilities.
- https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
- https://ctwgwebsite.github.io/blog/2025/MarginNotes_1_6/
- https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm3.html
*I don't think its as good as the last one, but I felt like I had to push through and get it out or else I would never do it.
Why Active Measures Pursues Demoralization
Socialism is an emergent property of immorality.
It may seem strange that those who cry loudest for freedom, whether it be for immigrant, gay, or religious freedom, work to take freedom away. It may also seem equally paradoxical that the same people who are ostensibly working towards a better future endorse and pursue every immoral permutation as policy. Stranger still it may appear that all the contrary religions, creeds, vices and identities all more or less work together in these goals.
This essay, which is the third part in the economic series, is a little different than the previous two. In this essay we will dive into the more metaphysical reality of what are freedoms, rights, how morality interplays with both, and how socialism emerges from immorality.
Firstly, we will need to understand a couple key concepts:
Active Measures - Active measures is the process by which communism molds the culture of a country. Through information dominance communists work to change the culture of a host country and alter the thought architecture of individuals so that socialism ideas are valued and socialism is accepted. Active measures may be thought of as communist spiritual warfare.
An example of active measures is why so many people feel good about seeing multiculturalism. Why when a minority is placed in a position of power, historically had by white people, does it engender such positive feelings? In a race-blind society it shouldn’t matter. Could it be that when young children are forming their minds they watch TV? That TV kids shows have the hero’s work as a multicultural group to defeat white homogenous villains? That the happy music is played at key intervals to reinforce the multiculturalism and the bad music is played when the villains show their homogeneity? That then these ideas are constantly reinforced throughout life by television, movies, music, school, and social media? It should be no surprise that the idea of multiculturalism and minority supremacy has been incorporated into the thought architecture, or unconscious, of so many people when such an effort has been made to program it in.
Demoralization: The definition of demoralization is most commonly to lose confidence, motivation and hope, however there is a deeper etymological meaning which is to corrupt and subvert morals, or simply to do away with them. This is the purpose behind active measures, it is the purpose because socialism is the emergent property of immorality
Emergent Property- An emergent property is something which comes about from a number of parts of factors but cannot be found in any one of the parts or factors. Think of emergent property like the phrase: “the whole is greater than the parts,” where the idea of the whole cannot be seen in any of its constituent parts. An example of an emergent property is that beauty can emerge from a painting but cannot be attributed to any brush stroke or color. Likewise, order can emerge from organizing a shelf of canned goods, but order cannot be tied to any one can being placed in any one location.
Morality- Morality is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Something which one does that is right, or good, is considered moral. Likewise, something which one does that is wrong, or evil is immoral. Morality can be further divided into two parts Natural law and divine law. Natural law is what we know is moral by our natural reason. Divine law is what we know is moral because God has revealed it to us.
Rights
Rights may be defined as positive moral imperatives. Classically the ideas of rights were largely developed in the Middle Ages from the social contracts between the different social layers. Over time certain rights became understood to be gifts from God to men whereby men were granted divine privilege to exercise certain prerogatives to bring about a good. It is a Dogma of the Faith that God is incapable of evil and thus he does not do anything for the purpose of bringing about evil. Thus, rights may be understood as having both a license to act and a duty. So, for instance the god given right to speech entails that we use our ability to speak to express the truth, not to lie. The right to property entails the ownership and free use of a thing, but this cannot be extended to use said property in a sinful manner. Therefore, the landowner may use his land for whatever end he freely chooses so long as it does not become a nuisance or a blight.
In truth when it is said the idea of rights were developed this refers to a formulation of the idea. Since the first person people have had a general understanding of owning things, speaking their minds, ect. The metaphysical, moral and legal framework would come later
The concept of rights further evolved during ascendency of socialism to be the atheistic concept that rights are an inherent property of being human and come from our humanity, this is what is meant when someone declares something a “human right.” Human Rights do not come with duties and are transitory. For if rights come from man what man may give, man may take away.
Natural Law – The Natural law is the philosophical axiom which describes the things which we know to be right and moral by use of our reason.
Divine Law – The Divine Law are the things which are right and moral as revealed to us by God.
Active measures, the spiritual warfare communists use to attack western countries, main goal is demoralization. But what is demoralization? The colloquial definition we are used to is that it is a loss of confidence, hope, and motivation, however demoralization there is a deeper etymological meaning which is that demoralization is to corrupt and subvert morals, or simply to do away with them. While it may seem as if these are two different definitions once we recognize that morality is good action then it becomes apparent that the first definition, (the loss of confidence, hope and motivation) is merely a part of the true definition of demoralization. Demoralization then may be thought of as the pursuit of immorality.
The obvious question then becomes why does communism pursue immorality? Surely, we have been told the opposite that capitalism creates excess which then leads to immorality. We are told the success of the Pax-Romana led to the excesses and immorality of the late empire, the capitalism of the industrial era created the lavish decadent bourgeoisie. We are given such examples are the Weimar republic where the in Marxist terms the means of production found its way into the hands of the wealthy bourgeoisie whose decadence infected German society. This led to the National Socialist takeover of Germany as a reactionary movement. But wait, can it be that when we examine the dialectics that Socialism emerges out immorality?
Rights come from God and exist so that we may pursue the good. We are gifted by God a body, a soul with free will, and given the material world with which to live in. We are given these gifts so that we may give glory to God. Natural Law then tells us that we are to live our lives in this world with the freedom to use what we have been given for the purpose with which they have been given. When we use these gifts to pursue material ends this is generally referred to as the Free-market.
When we use our gifts for immoral purposes we erode the foundations of our rights, because we act to undermine the purpose for which they are given and we act contrarily to the duties which come with them. Through this subversion our rights become weakened, and the freedoms guaranteed by our rights are eroded.
This is why communism pursues demoralization as its primary goal of active measures, it is to destroy our God given rights and end our freedoms so that socialism may emerge.
As we are living within this process the transitory phenomenon are observable to us.
Rights have degenerated from the God-given rights enshrined in the constitution to the human rights enshrined in the UN charter. Human rights are “rights” declared to be inherent to man. Because Human rights are derived from man, they are inherently amoral, as man being the author of his rights is therefore also the judge of his own morality. Which is to say if man can declare he has the right to say what he wants then he may declare what he says to be right. Thus, a human right is a license to act divorced from duty. The logical consequence is ultimately that human rights arrive at the axiom coined by Alester Crowley: “do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.”
Human rights therefore lead to contradictions and absurdities. The UN lists 30 articles in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Does the human right to health, however noble, entail the right to free healthcare (Article 25)? The human right to social security entails the “right” to establish a socialized pension plan and higher taxes to pay for it (Article 22). Article 17 states that everyone has the right to own property and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of it, yet Articles 22 & 25 state that their property is to be taken away for socialism. Perhaps the most absurd is Article 26 which states that people have the right to free compulsory education:
- Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
How many degrees of separation from this is the right to attend compulsory reeducation camps?
Another aspect of human rights which has hereto not been discussed is how human rights are determined to be rights. Because rights come from man it is man that determines whether a right is a right. This is an infinite regression where a right is inherent to man because man says it is inherent to him, an ultimate chicken or egg devoid of any substantive causality. Thus, in modernity under the human rights framework, there are always new rights which are created to serve the interests of those who created them. For instance, in Canada the indigenous Siberians have declared their rights to access ancestral salmon fishing grounds supersedes the rights of Canadians to live in the houses they build a hundred years ago. Thus, we see that human rights are really not rights at all, but privileges which can be given and taken away because they lack the authority of God and the moral prerogatives that come with it. Therefore, because rights come from man what man gives man can taketh away.
Because human rights necessarily create absurdities and contradictions they must be managed by an extensive network of laws for the survival of society. This is because when a nation divorces itself from its moral foundation, then laws must supplement morality. Thus, an abundance of laws must fill the void which was once taken up by morality which cover every perturbation of human action. This becomes indistinguishable from communism where all human interaction must be managed by the state.
So, because a society no longer has the moral backstop which governs behavior laws must be enacted which governs that behavior, but because there is no longer a moral foundation to the law the laws themselves are discorded, complex, and must be formulated through often competing frameworks derived from man.
Thus, we arrive at legal system which gives permissions to act under complicated legal specificities. For instance, you can build the shed you want if you follow all the codes, hire the inspectors, pay the permits, and maybe get an environmental review, all while saying you have the right to your property. Likewise, you have the right to hire who you want, but if you do not hire minorities then you will be sued. This is because the legal framework for minority hiring laws was derived from the manmade idea that all people are equal and that racial socio-economic differences were caused by minorities not having access to equal opportunities. Thus, any derivation from target benchmarks is discrimination which must be punished.
Another example being that if your wife divorces you you will have to fight it out in court over who owes who what, who will get the kids, visitation rights, and who will pay for the kids. Courts side with the women most of the time and if you don’t pay alimony and child support you go to jail. This is because the legal framework which the family court operates under comes out of the philosophy of feminism and equality, where before it was governed by our moral social cohesion.
Most importantly because we can observe there is no moral basis to the law, there is no check to how the laws are written and enforced. Thus, laws become a construct to benefit those who write them, corruption, concentration of power, and the anarcho-tyrannical two-tiered justice system emerge. Examples are abundant in the preferential treatment of leftwing agitators, racial cases, the California train to nowhere, tech oligarchs violating labor and SEC laws, the list goes on. Recently Trump used the department of Justice to block the IRS from auditing himself.
When a country operates under an extensive amoral legal framework which enforces so many rules and regulations, concentrates power, and disenfranchises the average citizen how far away is such a system away from communism? How long until the momentum carries it there?
This phenomenon was most acutely prefigured in the Talmud, where the Jews rejected God. In His stead they supplemented the authority of the rabbis. Thus, a labyrinth of byzantine religious laws emerged which govern all things.
Economics and Communist Demoralization
Economics is the study of human behavior under conditions of scarcity. However, this is an incomplete field as economics cannot exist in a vacuum, and all human behavior will have an influence on human behavior under conditions of scarcity. As such economics must take into consideration all of human behavior, which being created, is governed by the moral law. Morality can further be defined as the difference between right and wrong.
The free-market allows us to each pursue the good with what God has given us.
Because we live in the material world governed by the laws of nature it can be said there is an objective right way to do things. For instance, if we want to eat we know we have to work the farm. This doesn’t mean that there are not multiple right ways of doing things, but that there are objectively good and bad ways. For instance, you may decide to grow corn or raise chickens and put in the required work, who is to say which is right and which is wrong? However, raising salmon in Arizona is an objectively bad idea. Likewise, we may apply this reasoning to other pursuits. You and I may disagree whether Rembrandt or Van Goh painted the better pieces and it will still remain a fact that modern art is bad. God created us all with free will and made us all unique so that in his morality which we live under we may both have different preferences which are good and still know that there are things which are not good. For instance, I could organize a room many different ways and each way would be good according to the design, however I can disorganize a room many many more ways and each way is bad.
Communism is the opposite, as it tells us what we will do because there is no God.
This is why active measures, the communist plan to subvert the free people’s of the earth pursues a program of demoralization. Its methods are to sow discord, rebelliousness, contention, a disdain for religion, and really all manner of evil and vice into all things. Communism does this to degrade and break down the individual’s belief in the divine and his ability to act upon it. As such, all things which come under the program of demoralization become ugly, discorded, and divorced from reality. When the moral foundation of society is sufficiently eroded then socialism naturally will emerge.
Two Examples
Example one: music, television, and all social media has been degraded to such an extent that it has become ugly and insane to undermine our psyche, in accordance with the thoughts of communist philosopher Theodore Adorno and Herber Marcuse:
[Twelve-tone technique] subjugates music by setting it free. The subject rules over the music by means of a rational system in order to succumb to this rational system itself….Whereas this freedom [the freedom of the composer] is achieved in its disposal over the material, it becomes a determination of the material, a determination that confronts the subject as something alien and in turn subordinates the subject to its constraints….The subject disclaims its own spontaneity by projecting onto the historical subject matter the rational experiences that it had in its confrontation with it. The operations that broke the blind domination of the sonorous material become, through a system of rules, a blind second nature. To this the subject subordinates itself in search of protection and security, despairing of being able to fulfill the music on its own. Wagner’s precept of establishing rules for oneself and then following them reveals its fateful aspect. No rule is more repressive than the one that is self-promulgated. (2)
Musical forms, even constitutive modes of musical reaction, are internalizations of social forms. Like all art, music is as much a social fact as an inner self-shaping, a self-liberation from immediate social desiderata. The freedom of art, its independence of the demands made on it, is founded on the idea of a free society and in a sense anticipates its realization (2)
(One thing has not changed, communists love self important blathering. 12 tone music is what gives order to music, here Adorno is arguing that order in music is oppressive and the revolution needs it to be disordered)
Herbert Marcuse:
"If mass communications blend together harmoniously, and often unnoticeably, art, politics, religion, and philosophy with commercials, they bring these realms of culture to their common denominator—the commodity form. The music of the soul is also the music of salesmanship.” (3)
“The truth of art lies in its power to break the monopoly of established reality to define what is real.” (3)
In modern society the media takes the role of religion, it sets the culture, defines what is right and wrong. What you watch on your television, your computer, fill the void of religious ceremony in a post-moral society. What is being sold to us is psychologically a new way of thinking which abolishes the objective and moral order to bring about communism. We can see the fruits of the demoralization of the media. People are disordered, unable to hold thoughts, cannot act in meaningful ways, and unable to articulate why. Thus, the real politics become that the people are divorced from participating in the government, in other words they no longer control their own affairs in the political sense, and they slide into serfdom. Is it any wonder that socialism has emerged?
Example two: people get confused when they see that Russia funds both the left and the right, but when we contextualize it with the demoralization program the meaning becomes clear. By supporting immoral, fringe, crazy, and gay controlled opposition Russia applies the principles of its demoralization program to undermine our social cohesion, get conservatives to support and follow immoral people and spread divisiveness and confusion everywhere. This creates a breakdown in morality from which socialism naturally emerges. So, for instance, when two streamers have a Nick Fuentes style catfight the result is a degradation of the moral constitution of the viewers, it doesn’t really matter who thinks what about how obscure Greek philosophy applies to race realism or whatever they like to talk about. Likewise what supporters of Trump need to understand is that his rampant immorality is not something that should be overlooked in the quest to Make America Great Again, his sinfulness is a feature of his communism.
One need only look around to see the demoralizing effect Trump has had. The Republican Party was once heavily influenced by the Christian Coalition, where is the Christianity now? The best we can point to is a sort of Trump Messianism. The effects are profound but have not been fully realized, there is now no opposition to socialism within either party, and the fighting is mostly over which brand it will be.
On the necessity of Morality, and the pitfalls of Libertarianism
You have been told that a free market achieves a good end, but have you ever thought that the market must be good to be free. As alluded to earlier, the free market allows us the greatest ability use what we have in order to achieve the good. If morality is the difference between right and wrong, good and evil then it goes without saying that morality implies judgement. How one judges right and wrong is directly correlated to one’s morality. With regards to the free market we judge whether an endeavor has been good or bad by the profit which it brings about. That profit is in turn directly correlated to the buyers own judgement of whether that endeavor is good or bad.
In terms of natural law our actions must follow the laws supply and demand whereby what we produce is constrained by labor, prices, energy, and physics so that our product must be both produced efficiently and still be profitable. To maximize our profits these limiting factors lead us to create systems of order and harmony which are good. Since morality can be thought of as the difference between good and evil and our judgement of it, it can be said the goodness of free market system is intrinsically linked to our own judgement of good and evil.
For instance, a moral society does not tolerate cruelty to animals, and as the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost the people want to eat good food. Therefore morality incentivizes the farmer to provide adequate welfare for his animals. This simple sentence is the synthesis of many aspects of western morality such as the right to private property, animal welfare, independence, and right to own the fruits of your labor. This is opposed to the heavily subsidized food industry of today which operates Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Within these two conflicting paradigms we see that it is morality which is responsible for the difference, and this may be applied to most if not all industries.
The real paradigm however is that the free market can only be as free as it is good. If a free market is made up of individual actors then the morality of those actors will determine how free the market is. Bad actors in a free market are bad because they do bad things. They steal, cheat, lie, spend their money on vices, create trusts, laws, corruption, regulations, monopolies, and all manner of things from which socialism emerges. The free-market does have a way to regulate this, but that mechanism is in essence morality based. We do not buy from someone if we think they cheat or lie, but that is only because we believe that cheating and lying are evil. If we call good evil and evil good then there is no free-market mechanism to regulate against bad behavior, because that behavior is no longer bad. This is why demoralization has been so successful in getting people upset over baking a cake for gays. Is it right or is it wrong to have a private bakery decide whether they can serve a customer, or is it a violation of gay people’s human rights to a cake? Only a demoralized society could fight over such an absurdity.
This is why Libertarianism is fundamentally demoralization aside from the fact that it adds chaos and degeneracy. Libertarianism has no ability to distinguish between good and evil and thus it ultimately destroys the good systems created by the free market. The maxim of Libertarianism is that you have the absolute right to do whatever you want so long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. Well, who determines whether your rights are violating mine? Without a moral framework, that is impossible. Does your right to play music infringe upon my right to not listen to music? How about 1am when I am trying to sleep am I infringing on your rights if I tell you to turn it off? Do you have the right to dump your trash into the river that I drink from like they do in India, just because I drink from the river doesn’t mean I own it right? Whenever there is social conflict without a moral system to resolve it, laws must be created or else might makes right.
Final Thoughts:
We have freedoms and rights to make the right choices, to achieve good with what is under our power to control. To describe it technically morality is the proper use of our resources, when we use our mind and our bodies towards a good end then it can be said that we acted morally. Inversely immorality is always a misuse of resources. Immorality can be stated simply as using what we have for bad ends. We use our minds to think bad thoughts, our mouths to say bad things, our bodies to commit bad acts, our time wastefully, or our property abusively. When resources are misused, they are apt to be taken away by authority under the guise of properly using them. More importantly however is that socialism is the misuse of resources thus immorality and socialism are intrinsically linked which is why I challenge anyone to find any country which has become more moral with socialism.
Final note:
It is easy for us to fall into the trap of supporting immoral people who support our causes, however the old Catholic axiom remains true: “you can’t fight Satan with Satan.” True Westernists emulate Christ to the best of their abilities.
- https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
- https://ctwgwebsite.github.io/blog/2025/MarginNotes_1_6/
- https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odm3.html
