On Trump’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress: Immigration, Poverty and The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

In Trump’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress, he declared that he created an institution for the ‘Victims of illegal immigration’. In light of the evidence, I must ask: What kind of bullshit xenophobic garbage is this? It’s actually proven that Illegal Immigrants commit less violent crimes than ordinary U.S. citizens.[1] But in a world of ‘alternative facts’, I suppose this isn’t too much of a surprise. They are being scapegoated for our countries problems, but most of us know they are entirely not to blame.

Trump says we can solve poverty by addressing violence. But this is an entirely backward analysis. Anti-social behavior is a result of poverty.[2] Even Aristotle spoke of poverty being the “parent of crime”.  That is why the poor are disproportionately more violent. Violence doesn’t cause poverty, poverty causes violence. Now, if you want to address the root cause of poverty in the world today it’s people like Trump, billionaires and multi-millionaire capitalists who live off the labor of others. Those in poverty entirely make up “that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor.”(Engels, 42).  And people like Trump live off their labor alone, amounting ‘their’ billions. His vast wealth is solely due to the poverty of the poor.

Trump makes grand statements of national solidarity, prosperity, liberty and democracy. But these are false slogans, they cannot and will not exist as anything more than an empty slogan in our present society. His use of bringing in the families of the ‘victims of illegal immigrants’ and of fallen soldiers is but a pathetic means to an end. The people will not be free so long as they live under a dictatorship of the rich (or as Marx called a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), under a dictatorship of two capitalist parties who are ideologically identical in nature. The oligarchy of the property owning class is the only institution in our society that actively holds all formal political power, its power is derived from the two-party system that people are ideologically compelled to participate in. In this way, the cycle of oppression can be celebrated as ‘democracy’. Poverty can be celebrated as a ‘free choice’ even if it is practically forced upon its subjects.

People like Trump are the problem, not illegal immigrants and certainly not other countries whose labor people like Trump exploit! I think it’s high time that the workers of America unite to build their own party, to smash the fetters of the false democracy, of the two-party system, and of the capitalist state. To take back what is rightfully theirs and solemnly declare that “labor creates the world, labor is entitled to all it creates!”

Sources:

1 Immigration Study

2 Crime and poverty

3 Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels ☭

Mankind shall only be free once they own everything from the factories to the stars!

Immigrant workers may work harder than natives. But only because their conditions of exploitation are much worse. We must never forget this fact. They must own the farms they work. The land belongs to those who till it! They must have a democratic say in their workplaces. The factories and businesses belong to those who toil within them! In essence, the world belongs to those who do labor, for there would be no world at all without labor. And yes, the slums and apartments, the homes and dwellings of the people belong to those who live within them! Not to the banks, not to the landlords, not to the capitalists. No! They belong to the people! We must not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, gender, and yes, or of nationality! We shall say to the capitalist that they too much work and actively contribute to society, no longer shall they live off the labor and toil of others. No longer shall they be entitled to what other people produce, but that they themselves must work. Compensation shall be paid on the basis of proven need of small investors, of small capitalists, not millionaires. The Large industries are to be immediately brought into public ownership and democratic management of the working class. The right to inherit private property shall be abolished and thereby small businesses will be brought into the ownership of the working class upon the death of the owner/s, or by the sale of the company to the workers. I wholeheartedly believe that the people of the world will not be free until they own everything from the farms, restaurants, and factories to the stars!

Immigration, The Future of Capitalism, and a Defense of Trotskyism

Immigration

When we look at the world today we do not see a very pretty picture. European social democracy isn’t doing so well and its economic crisis is worsened by the immigration crisis and with it the reactionary response among the more conservative elements of European society. Indeed European society is in a crisis unforeseen in the world today. The immigration crisis on top of that is unprecedented, and the solution to this problem is impossible without issues.

Anyone who asserts the immigration crisis can simply be solved entirely by some kind of ‘peaceful integration’ is a fool. Such things are not so easy, there will always be a clash of cultures like oil and water. But by no means is it acceptable for a state responsible for bombing a countries people to turn them down when they seek refuge. It is morally wrong. It is unjust. We must let them in, it is our duty as citizens of the earth! We must let them in allow them their dignity and right to exist! But we must also acknowledge the problems that inevitably arise in mixing two cultures together in such a rapid way. It is impossible to ignore their backward customs, regarding women in particular.

On one hand, you have liberals advocating that full integration will have no problems and on the other, you have conservatives such as Milo and Trump advocating total exclusion (i.e. ‘extreme vetting’, nationalism, etc.) on the basis of religion or nationality. Both are absurd notions even if their initial premise is based on a kernel of truth.

The Future of Capitalism

Slavoj Žižek in his book Trouble in Paradise makes a good argument for the state of the world today. I am admittedly inspired by this work in this regard. It is an eye-opening look at world events today. Let’s look at the 4 great forces of capitalism in the world today. European social democracy is collapsing, US neoliberalism is in an era of seemingly permanent recession and Latin America’s capitalism isn’t doing so much better either. The only capitalism that is working in the world today in Asia, is the so-called ‘capitalism with Asian values’. It is highly authoritarian in nature and totally incompatible with democracy, and because of its success in comparison with the other 3 prevailing versions of capitalism, it is undeniably the future of the capitalist system. The two principles of democracy and of capitalism have always been contradictory, but their total divorce is inevitable as capitalist society progresses. Slavoj Žižek has taken on the role of the social alarmist in this regard, and rightfully so.

Slavoj Žižek makes another valid point in posing the question: Who has the must brutally efficient, successful capitalism? It is none other than the kind advocated by the Communist Party of China. What irony is this? In China, it is illegal to point out this contradiction, that the CPC still justifies itself on a Marxist line yet fully embraces a total bureaucratic dictatorship and a virtual dictatorship of the foreign and domestic bourgeoisie. It is even illegal to point out that it is illegal to point out this contradiction. So many intellectuals, thinkers, and socialists have been imprisoned for breaking this, which is one of many, unspoken rules of Chinese society.

Trotskyism

People often hit me with this question, “what about China? You are a socialist so you must support the Chinese one-party dictatorship, Stalin, Mao, etc.” But this is absolute nonsense. I am a member of Socialist Alternative yes, and it is a Marxist organization. But not a Marxist-Leninist organization. We are Trotskyists, and as such we are militantly opposed to Stalinism. We are also militantly opposed to a one-party state. Contrary to common belief you will not find a single page written by Lenin that advocates such a one-party system. In fact, up to 1924 in Russia, there were several mainstream political parties (the Left-Mensheviks, Anarchists, Social-Revolutionaries, etc.).

Worse still you accuse us, the most vocal opponents of totalitarianism and Stalinism of advocating the very things we are militantly and vocally opposed to. Socialist Alternative is part of the CWI, the Committee for a Workers International. It is an international Trotskyist organization and it just so happens that our Chinese counterparts have recently been illegally raided by the Chinese authorities for calling for an abolition of the Chinese dictatorship. Yes! In China, our organization’s counterpart has advocated the overthrow of the Chinese government you so fervently accuse us of supporting because we just so happen to fly the red banner.

Who supported the early worker’s revolts in Soviet Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia? It was us, the Trotskyists advocating the overthrow of Stalinism and the establishment of actual socialist democracy! 95% of the population, of the proletariat, was opposed to the Stalinist state during this time. They were calling not for the reestablishment of capitalism against socialism, but for socialism against Stalinism! Yes, it was we who supported their efforts, yes it was we who abhorred the lack of free speech, general elections, the lack of freedom of press and assembly, the religious persecution, and the one-party system that was the foundation of Stalinism in the USSR and the Marxist states of the 20th century! So how can we help but laugh when you accuse us of advocating these things? It is nonsense, total nonsense!

The Dialectic of The Two Party System: The Illusion of Free Will and The Only Way Out

When you think of the American two-party system as a dialectic, only then does the realization of total political class servitude enter into the mind. In American society the liberal “left” and conservative right is designed to act as the thesis and anti-thesis of this dialectic. So that the only viable outcome (the synthesis) is the result of a conflict of these two ideologies, which are inherently favorable the same capitalist ideology of both the synthesis and anti-synthesis. There are fundamental issues of grave importance that are not discussed in the two party system, as any socialist can tell you.

In order to have free will, there has to be a recollection between these two sides (the synthesis). You have to pick a side to influence change in the political sphere. But in the two-party system, this is an intentionally limited paradigm so that the only conclusions one can come to in mainstream politics is one that reinforces the existing social order, and this synthesis can do nothing but. This is the dialectic of the two party system. There are those of us who do not fit into this two-party dialectic (we socialists in particular). For those of us who do not fit into the two-party system, it is our duty to do away with it entirely by introducing a rogue variable into the political sphere that will smash it entirely. This is our call to the working class.

The two-party system is but an illusion of free will and democracy. The two parties are nothing but toys of the ruling class, which when politicized in bourgeois society (as it always is) becomes an oligarchy. To quote the question posed by one of my favorite early Marxists, Ernest Untermann, “Has history not taught us that mere political democracy without industrial democracy amounts to virtual oligarchy in practice?” This oligarchy supports both parties because they both support the interests of the oligarchy and thereby of the ruling class.

As Engels says in his 1891 work The Civil War in France“It is precisely in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society, whose mere instrument it was originally intended to be. Here there exists no dynasty, no nobility, no standing army, beyond the few men keeping watch on the Indians, no bureaucracy with permanent posts or the right to pensions. and nevertheless we find here two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends* — and the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.”

There is virtually no difference between this system of limited, truncated and false “democracy” and a one party state except for this illusion of choice. And I by no means am advocating a one-party system. The only solutions that can be found for the problems we face today on a large scale are wholly outside the two-party system, for the bourgeoisie itself (acting through this two-party system) is wholly responsible for creating and maintaining these problems on a massive scale, for producing the problems of capitalist society which are innumerable. The synthesis of the dialectic will only ever solidify the rule of the oligarchy, the reign of the ruling class. The synthesis may address feeble problems that concern this ruling class’s hold on power but never will it threaten that power directly, even in circumstances of dire emergency.

Has this not, on the other hand, brought us many progressive reforms to the capitalist system? Indeed it has, but at the same time, there are problems posed by the very capitalist system itself, fundamental problems that threaten our very existence, that cannot be solved but by the abolition of the capitalist system entirely. These are the problems of homelessness, poverty, hunger, the anarchy of production, vast wealth inequality, alienation, unhappiness, climate change, imperialism, imperialist war, capitalist exploitation itself, lack of real political democracy, total lack of any real industrial democracy, the crippling of the individual, of individual liberty and creative expression, etc. Sure they can put band-aids on these issues to soften their blow, or dazzle them with grand words of liberty and duty but in the end, they cannot solve these problems inside the capitalist system. For when capitalism is abolished there will be nothing pushing back on such reforms, these problems can be addressed directly without challenging the fundamental nature of the prevailing socio-economic system. In fact, socialism demands these problems be solved immediately and without hesitation. There is no conflict of interest in pursuing these issues absolutely and without excuse under a socialist system. And for these grave evils, there certainly is no acceptable excuse to be made in addressing them.

This, my friends, is why at Socialist Alternative we call for a new party of the 99%. A party that will not be a part of this dialectic, nor part of a three-party dialectic of the same nature (if you can imagine such a thing). It will be wholly outside the scope of the action of this oligarchy, and thereby it will directly threaten its power. Thus it forms a new dialectic between the 99% and the 1% directly. The interests of the majority and of the bourgeoisie go head to head against one another. This new party is but a step in our transitional program (see Trotsky’s Transitional Program). We at Socialist Alternative do not claim to be this party, nor do we want to be. We call on the working class itself to unify in struggle and build it themselves! We simply wish to be a leading force in guiding this party, the party of the 99%, towards total liberation. This is not to say that this party will by any means lead directly to some sort of revolutionary struggle, but rather that it will unify the proletarian masses to allow for such a dialectic to exist in a much more powerfull way. The synthesis of a unified, class-conscious proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be only in what Marx would call “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”, in the establishment of absolute and genuine democracy, for true liberty and equality for all. And that my friends, is the end of capitalism.

 

*  My Italics -TFB

What Ever Happened to all the Old Racist Whites from those Civil Rights Photos?

AfroSapiophile

What ever happened to those white folks from those old photos?

A few months ago from this day of publishing, I had an interesting discussion with a white guy at work.  The subject of riots came up.  Pretty much, he attempted to place a mass association of “riots” to Black Lives Matter protesters.  Fascinated with his thoughts (which severely lacked critical thinking), I throw him a critical thinking question:

“Do you think that Black Live Matter protesters, command riots?”

I had to repeat the question because he was in total shock, as if he walked from a train wreck, because he didn’t expect to engage in critical thinking.

detroit_race_riots Do you think MLK changed this white man’s bigoted social ideology?  Any of them?

He answered no, which was smart; they do not command riots to occur.  It’s a bit stupid to suggest such.  While he did concede the point that BLM…

View original post 1,164 more words

The LSD Trip That Made Me Abandon Atheism

I took some LSD and had the trip of a lifetime. I cannot scientifically explain the events that took place this night and have documented them after finding details of what I saw in an ancient occult text. I have not used drugs in the past 2 years because I no longer feel the need to do so. I must say that if you are going to do LSD or MDMA or any drug other than cannabis that you buy and use a test-kit because you never know for sure what you are getting. It could save your life or yourself from a very bad experience. An additional 15-20$ is worth it trust me. Though I do not condone drug use per se, I respect the individual liberty of those who care to do so and I do not believe it should be infringed upon.

This is an account of the experience I had that I cannot scientifically explain while on 1 tab of some very potent LSD. This experience led me to abandon my atheism only after doing research on one of the spirits name and coming to learn that it was real and in an ancient occult book which I found descriptions, names, appearances and functions of the other beings (spirits, or demons) that I encountered.

In order:
~2 AM or so

Played “I put a spell on you”

The song that began the visions

Note that this was several years ago and I have written only what I remember well. I am attempting to describe the indescribable. The state of mind I was in cannot be put into words, but alas I will do my best. This kind of consciousness is truly of another world.

I sense a being during or after the song, not a spirit per se but some sort of entity capable of going through the earth and snatching people up in some weird metaphysical way. To the beat of the song part of me calls out to the universe in a strange way. There I have visions of a strange being approaching. With hair on the bottom of its feet. It is a grotesque, large thing with a stick of some kind (staff or scepter?). The being was what can best be described as a humanoid monster. I sensed it was the thing that could snatch beings up and take them to another world/ an afterlife of some sort but I sensed no danger from it. It was not a hostile vision. In fact all of my visions in this time were not hostile. They were strange and alien but not hostile.

Then after this I find myself laying on the couch and I look up to the mirror to see a somewhat transparent but not like any kind of physical substance I can describe, smoke like thing coming out of the mirror. I hear it speak to me in a distorted, hoarse, almost electronic voice, “I AM ASMODEUS”. Kind of like “ASZZZMOAHDEEYUS”. Then I have visions of this 6 animal legged lion headed being (later identified with Buer) dancing and with it I sense madness, the madness of the state I am in because of the LSD.

Then come the visions of what very well may be hell. Visions of fiery cavernous world. Blades of grass move to and fro with the wind. But instead of grass they are flames. To my right a yellow cave, a large rock and in it I sense there is Asmodeus (later found a myth of Asmodeus in Islamic folklore as ‘the demon in the rocks’). Beyond the grassy field in the distance there are shadowy figures of a towering castle. In the windows there is a red glow of fire and behind it is smoke or clouds glowing with some distant red/ yellow light. In front of (or behind, I don’t remember) is a path. There what can best be described as phantoms with no faces and large eyes (like shy guys almost) hover over the ground. I think I remember them carrying spears or swords of some sort.

Then I sense another demon whose terrible musicalal notes I hear. It is a psychedelic sound, it cannot be described with any words I know but alas I must try. It was like piano notes but instead of a normal piano sound it was like shattering glass and destruction. It wasn’t painful but it wasn’t pleasant. It was so alien to me. These beings were WEIRD, but strangely beautiful. In this entire time I did not think they were ‘spirits’ or ‘demons’ or anything other than a projection of my own mind. It wasn’t until after the trip that after misspelling “asmodeus” in google 10 times that I had a hit. This led me to the Ars Goetia (the lesser key of solomon) in which I found Asmodeus and the names of the other beings I saw during this trip. I had no prior knowledge of the occult. I never cared for it as an atheist and growing up I was too afraid to look at that kind of thing as I came from a religious family. I am 100% certain I would’ve remembered reading something so strange, especially an ancient occult text about summoning demons. I have since abandoned atheism.

For the Occult savvy:

First sense Ronove, then came Asmodeus out of the mirror and finally visions of Buer and other demons.
Later learning the names of all but Asmodeus who gave me his name immediately.

Demons seen that I most recognize listed in the Ars Goetia:

Asmodeus: Told name specifically, appeared as hazy smoke coming out of mirror. Like in another dimension almost.
Ronove: Vision of common form and sensed purpose was to take souls to hell. Hairy soles of feet, carried stick thing, monstrous
Buer: Danced around me in form same as Dictionnaire Infernal
Amdusias?: Played music in vision of fiery world (hell?)

Psychedelic drugs are powerful tools. Use them responsibly!

The Elements of Leadership: Immoral, Moral and Immorally Moral Pragmatism

The dramatic introduction in the very first scene to Frank Underwood, the protagonist in the Netflix Original Series House of Cards is worthy of an analysis for this post. The scene I am referring to can be found below. There is no doubt a reason why this is the viewers introduction to the shows main character as this embodies a fundamental characteristic not only of Frank Underwood himself but one inherent to leadership in general. As to not spoil the show I recommend you to stop reading here if you have not watched the first three seasons of House of Cards.

“Moments like this require someone who will act, [someone who will] do the unpleasant thing, the necessary thing… There, no more suffering”

This ability to act, to do the unthinkable when it is necessary is the embodiment of pragmatism. By ‘pragmatism’ I do not mean it in the philosophical sense of the word but rather the ability to realize what is necessary and logical in a given situation and the ability to do it. Pragmatism is of course necessary for any leader to have. When governing a large number of people you have to be willing to sacrifice the few for the many without a moment’s hesitation. However as you may very well know Frank Underwood is not your typical pragmatic acting only when it is right but he is immorally pragmatic. We see this in the fact that he acts in such a way when it threatens his political career and not merely the status and security of the sovereign. Was it pragmatic to kill Zoe Barnes or Peter Russo? It was necessary only insofar as to protect Frank’s political career. In this sense such actions were not justified by any external element or purpose higher than himself but rather solely by his thirst for power. Such selfish pragmatism I shall refer to immoral or absolute pragmatism.

Moral pragmatism on the other hand is the use of pragmatism only when it is moral. In this sense of the word many actions a leader or even a normal person in day-to-day life can be an expression of moral pragmatism. However sometimes the most moral act is inherently immoral. This is the kind of situation leaders are faced with everyday. For an example of this moral dilemma I shall refer to a film (that can be found on Netflix) called Unthinkable.

The general synopsis of the film is that there is a terrorist who sets 3 nuclear weapons in unknown cities across the United States. He makes a film and releases it to the public threatening they will go off in X days and then intentionally gets arrested. He promises to reveal the location of the three bombs if they (the various intelligence agencies interrogating him) meet his demands, which are that the US stop funding puppet dictators and withdraw all troops from Muslim countries. But his demands here are irrelevant. What is relevant is the moral dilemma that the movie poses. Of course I recommend going and seeing this film for yourself, it is a very good film but it is not necessary.

What we have in this movie is essentially the use of torture that gets increasingly brutal and morally unacceptable in order to compel him (the terrorist) to reveal the locations of the bombs. The question comes down to whether there is a limit of justifiable injustice you can inflict on 1, 2 or 10 people to save millions. Towards the end of the movie, the torture ‘specialist’ named H decides to take things to the next level and gets the terrorists children into the interrogation room to kill them in front of him. The shows protagonist, (an FBI agent on the case) argues from the moralistic side that we must take the moral high ground and not torture, and that we must not resort to such brutality. Now I am assuming the obvious here, that torture under specific circumstances and when applied correctly works. But the question of if torture works generally will not be addressed here.

While H drags the children into the room various members of other intelligence agencies are arguing for its immorality, trying to shut it down, etc. The CIA however, of which H is a part of, threatens to use force on anyone who stops H from acting and potentially killing these innocent children. I will not spoil the film but the question remains, is it moral? Is it just?

Can what is inherently unjust be just under certain circumstances? The CIA director in the film, along with H seems to argue that it can absolutely be just. They argue that it is immoral of course, however it is necessary to torture/ kill 2 innocent children in order to prevent the deaths of millions of innocent children. Because of this necessity it truly becomes the lesser of the two evils. By taking the ‘moral high ground’ and refusing to hurt two innocent children you are in fact acting immorally because you are essentially responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent children by not acting. For it is truly the only way to uncover the locations of the two bombs.

I argue that it is the moral obligation of H to go through with the horrific act. H is in a predicament where he must act. By not acting H would be making a conscious decision to let some 6 million people die in a nuclear inferno. Are you not therefore responsible for this then? Yes and no. Whoever planted the bombs in the first place (the antagonist) is of course directly responsible and most of the blame falls on him. However, you have it in your power to prevent this enormous injustice that he plans to orchestrate and therefore by not doing everything in your power, even the unthinkable, you are responsible to an undeniably significant degree.

Thus to not act you are committing an ever graver crime than by acting. By refusing to get your hands dirty and do the unthinkable you are willing to stand by and allow millions to die because your conscience prevents you from acting. Should the conscience be ignored in this act? Not at all! The conscience should be the part of you urging you to do the unthinkable act. It should be the driving force in the recognition that by doing nothing you are doing something, a something that will lead to the deaths of millions. What you are left with is the compulsion to ultimate lesser evil.

By doing nothing at all it may appear that you are taking the moral high ground, by not sinking to their level. But this is a mistake; by being in that situation you have to choose between one or the other. It comes down to a simple question: do you want 2 innocent children to die (even by your own hands) or millions of innocent children? The moral high ground in this situation is precisely putting your own morals and values aside and committing the unthinkable act. You have to sacrifice the children for the greater good, but also your own moral dignity, your own values and likely your mental health as well. The heroic thing becomes not the refusal to act due to the horrific nature of the act itself but the ability to do so regardless.

This is the kind of pragmatism we are referring to, it is moral pragmatism because it is morally justifiable even if the act itself is inherently immoral. However it is not merely moral pragmatism, it is immorally moral pragmatism. Decisions like this are made on a daily basis by leaders trying to do what is best for their people. But sometimes they act with immoral pragmatism, disregarding the well being of the people for their own personal gain (i.e. to stay in power, to gain material wealth, etc.) Frank Underwood is a perfect example of immoral pragmatism.

Frank takes things to the absolute extreme and thereby transcends moral pragmatism. This is the double-sided coin of absolute or immoral pragmatism. Pragmatism is a necessary trait in a leader, but too much pragmatism is not a good thing at all. Absolute or immoral pragmatism is the ability to completely disregard morality in order to do what is necessary. This is not what we are referring to here. The pragmatism we are referring to is precisely the ability to use moral reasoning to quickly judge what is the lesser evil and to act without hesitation and not to disregard morality entirely. Absolute pragmatism disregards this.

In the situation in Unthinkable, both the moral pragmatism and the absolute pragmatism lead us to the same conclusion that two people have to die so that millions can live. But the absolute pragmatic does not do so out of moral conviction to do what is just or what is right. For them it is merely cold reasoning, they have no concern for the well being of one or of millions. Their concern is their own self-interest. The element of conscience is absent entirely in their logical formulation of what is necessary. This kind of pragmatism is the most dangerous form as it takes an illogical and immoral attribute in many situations. To kill 5 people to stay in power or stay out of jail ceases to be an issue even if the lives of 5 good people are worth more than 1 bad one.

The moral (the immorally moral) pragmatic is the most heroic in the situation of doing the unthinkable. Not only are they using moral reasoning to decide what to do but also they are sacrificing their own well-being, their own innocence for the greater good. The absolute or immoral pragmatic loses nothing from committing this act; they have no conscience that prevents them from casually doing so without reason. To know that it is an injustice on a relatively small scale, even when it is extremely disturbing to the perpetrator, and to do it anyways is arguably the most heroic thing a person can do in this situation. Thus the moral pragmatic embodies moral immorality while the absolute pragmatic embodies only immorality.

The best kind of leader is one that recognizes that the well being of the many is worth more than the well being of the few, even if that means doing the unnecessary, often horrible act with their own hands to prevent something even worse from happening. The best kind of leader formulates moral reasoning into the analysis that leads them to such actions as a necessary prerequisite to the action itself. To use moral justification and not merely cold, emotionless reasoning is absolutely crucial. Only can such a leader genuinely care about his/her subjects and not merely their position of power.

This kind of leader has a conscience but uses it constructively in this moral reasoning process. They use it to justify their actions even if they are immoral insofar as they prevent an even worse injustice, and thus the action becomes moral (or immorally moral). This kind of leader is logical but not cold in his reasoning. They feel the pain of those they hurt but they also know the pain of those that would have been hurt by their non-action (which itself is an action). Empathy is crucial to responsible leadership however it must be understood that sometimes a small injustice is necessary to prevent an even greater one. The best leader is morally, even immorally morally pragmatic while the worst leader is merely immorally or absolutely pragmatic.