[foxdemon]

My question is in what way is Trump being impeded?

Trump is President. He has a majority of both houses of the legislature. In principle, he should be able to act with authority, and propose and pass any legislation. Yet he has not even proposed one piece of legislation - only made vague statements and signed mostly meaningless executive orders. The very executive branch that executes his will is ignored - he is not filling posts with the people required to actually run the government.

Indeed, the lies we are being fed by the media and by Trump are astounding (although hardly unprecedented). But lies are no excuse for Trump's utter legislative passivity. I don't care how corrupt Trump is, but it makes no sense to excuse his inaction. And BTW, I felt the same way about Obama's passivity.

Why do people run for President if they are unwilling to exercise power? Is it just ego?

This I will say about Trump: stop being a crybaby. Make the people who are laughing at you start to fear you. Fire Rosenstein and Muller. Impound funds going to districts whose GOP representatives defy you (yeah, maybe that's unconstitutional but Nixon did it and you can too). Start a wholesale housecleaning within the CIA, NSA, and FBI. Start putting the fear of God into people. Fire McMaster and the rest of the neocon hawks. Veto the damn sanctions, and make them override your veto. Bannon wants to raise the top marginal rate to 44%; listen to him. For God's sake, dump Ivanka and Kushner.

This clown stumbled into office thinking it would be a part time gig. I have no sympathy at all.

Trump seems to like rule by decree. As opposed to say rule of law or rule by law. Rule of law we all understand: the law applies to everyone, even the sovereign. Rule by law is less often considered but well describes the way people try to swing things in today's polarised society. Both the politically correct and the politically incorrect try to impose law on the other which they don't intend to be applied to themselves. That is a step backward from law of law. So why not take two steps back and go for rule by decree?

I the true value in Donald Trump is that the dude is a wrecking ball. The structure of American federal administration has been focused on building and maintaining a global system of power for many years. Pax American: the American peace, has provided the basis of uninhibited global commerce via the domination of the world's oceans by the USN. However the rise of real competition in the form of the PLAAN is compromising that peace. The oceans are becoming contested again. American dominance in trade and finance is also waining. America needs to reorganise the federal power struture to allow adaption to the new circumstances and adjust to a new multipolar world. The old guard need to be displaced to make way for new blood. Trump and his minions aren't the new blood, just the demolition team knocking down the old structure. Wrecking ball Trump will have to be replaced by the bulldozer team to clean up the rubble.

I had better say something on topic. Let me see...well Nietzsche was a funny guy. I think he is often misunderstood. To really appreciate what he was on about would require going on a bar crawl with him. Obviously that is not possible but there are plenty of living rabble rousers to hang out with. Most people who quote Nietzsche wouldn't hang out rabble rousers anyway and in truth they just aren't bohemian enough to do his ideas justice.

[Rugoz]

What we call 'morality' is simply the way we conceptualise the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. In that respect, the 'master morality' is indeed a form of morality - it prescribes the way that the superior man 'ought' to live his life. The fact that you don't approve of it is irrelevant. An adherent of the master morality would likely regard you as a thoroughly disreputable person for trying to elevate the vices of a slave into a moral system.

The strong don't need morality, they simply impose their will. Morality is always the work of the powerless and the compassionate.

[One Degree]

The strong don't need morality, they simply impose their will. Morality is always the work of the powerless and the compassionate.

You just described your morality. You described how it 'ought ' to be.

[Rugoz]

You just described your morality. You described how it 'ought ' to be.

Nope, that was purely descriptive. To the extent the strong need morality they are weak (or compassionate).

[One Degree]

Nope, that was purely descriptive. To the extent the strong need morality they are weak (or compassionate).

'Descriptive ', 'extent', 'strong ', 'weak', 'compassionate ' is a lot of moral words to deny morality. Denying morality is morality.

[mikema63]

Your they guy who literally thinks all human activity is religious. It's a little hard to give your definitions for words like morality and religion much weight since they seem to be determined by whatever will prove your point. Not that I'm agreeing with rugoz either.

[One Degree]

Your they guy who literally thinks all human activity is religious. It's a little hard to give your definitions for words like morality and religion much weight since they seem to be determined by whatever will prove your point. Not that I'm agreeing with rugoz either.

I will admit my favorite post of all time was the "I will argue anything for $5", but I don't charge.
That said, my reasoning here is still valid.

[Rugoz]

I obviously assume morality to be a social construct, superstitious people can fuck off.

[RhetoricThug]

I obviously assume morality to be a social construct, superstitious people can fuck off.

Well, the death of dogma is the beginning of morality. Nietzsche is qualifying a state of mind serious philosophers inhabit- the superman is beyond conventional social constructs. Master builders are social architects, they're always trying to engineer favorable relations. Albert Pike knew this, hence the name- Morals & Dogma.

'Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.' Thus- supermen/master builders construct shadows and lies for the masses. The Cave needs renovation.

Dogma is a fixed and subjective organizational tool, it is not an objective or moral standpoint. Nonetheless, compassion or 'love' is a bio-chemical happening, not a social construct.

What we call 'morality' is simply the way we conceptualise the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. In that respect, the 'master morality' is indeed a form of morality - it prescribes the way that the superior man 'ought' to live his life. The fact that you don't approve of it is irrelevant. An adherent of the master morality would likely regard you as a thoroughly disreputable person for trying to elevate the vices of a slave into a moral system.

You neglect to mention Natural Law as an unchanging system of evolutionary morality. Perhaps if you let go of that commie-era pseudo-intellectual perspective you might be able to say something insightful.

[Rugoz]

Well, the death of dogma is the beginning of morality. Nietzsche is qualifying a state of mind serious philosophers inhabit- the superman is beyond conventional social constructs. Master builders are social architects, they're always trying to engineer favorable relations. Albert Pike knew this, hence the name- Morals & Dogma.

'Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.' Thus- supermen/master builders construct shadows and lies for the masses. The Cave needs renovation.

Wut?

[MB.]

I think part of what Rhetoric thug is saying is that morality is real in the sense that it's literally a series of chemical reactions in your brain. Dogmatic thinking and moralistic thinking are thus related as they both represent modes of thought. However, dogmatic thinking differs from moralistic (categorical, objective), as dogmatism is subjective and generated by, probably political, illusion.

I think dogmatism, in its political or organization form, is not subjective, however, but inter-subjective as it represents corporate memes that have been codified doctrinally, usually by writing them down.

[RhetoricThug]

EDIT:

I think part of what Rhetoric thug is saying is that morality is real in the sense that it's literally a series of chemical reactions in your brain. Dogmatic thinking and moralistic thinking are thus related as they both represent modes of thought. However, dogmatic thinking differs from moralistic (categorical, objective), as dogmatism is subjective and generated by, probably political, illusion.

Yes, thank you MB!

@Rugoz

Well, the death of dogma is the beginning of morality.

A living state of natural morality can free you from man-made dogma once you transcend cultural convention. Lex naturalis serves humanity as a social code of conduct. Dogma is a side-effect of SELF-serving canon, created for tribal order. Natural Law must come before any 'official doctrine' because biological organisms are living breathing phenomena that happen before the fact or state of social construction. True morality is seeing others as yourself, before tribal laws instruct you how to treat others. Furthermore, one may suggest that Lex naturalis is a form of tribal law, but that defeats the essence of human reason. Logically, it is an observable fact that living phenomena 'happens' before any formalized social text/institution. Kant said 'the death of dogma is the beginning of morality,' because dogma is a temporary safe-guard constructed around tribal awareness, it is an identity/entity created by man, not nature. Lastly, dogma must be one side-effect of intellectual idolatry, and carried to its logical necessity, dogmatism is a tool used to enslave human beings.

Nietzsche is qualifying a state of mind serious philosophers inhabit- the superman is beyond conventional social constructs. Master builders are social architects, they're always trying to engineer favorable relations. Albert Pike knew this, hence the name- Morals & Dogma.

Zarathustra described the Übermensch as one anarchist seeking to establish his/her own values/morality. This, of course, is a side-effect of Nietzsche looking for a way around conventional Christian morality. In a way, Nietzsche's existential angst created an antagonistic pathology, because he fulfilled his own prophecy by becoming the monster he wished to destroy (dialectics of empire, in the mind and in the flesh). In the end, all supermen wish to impose their idea of reality on others.

For Pike, the esoteric term master builder extended to social engineering, because he knew that the masonic order had to externalize its own dogmatic moral system so it may compete in the market of idolatry. The allegory of the architect resembles Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch. Remember, the Masons are in direct competition with Christianity (especially Catholicism and the Jesuit tribe).

'Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.' Thus- supermen/master builders construct shadows and lies for the masses. The Cave needs renovation.

It is the responsibility of any hierarchical system of intellectual ecology (government) to design Plato's cave, for the cave is where the masses dwell, and where profane somnambulists dream.

When I call someone a sleep-walker, I mean to say- they're living in the cave of perception, they think therefore believe in their education. Intellectual sleep-walking is a very dangerous form of conditioned conformity, but it also makes the war worth fighting.

[Rugoz]

A living state of natural morality can free you from man-made dogma once you transcend cultural convention. Lex naturalis serves humanity as a social code of conduct. Dogma is a side-effect of SELF-serving canon, created for tribal order. Natural Law must come before any 'official doctrine' because biological organisms are living breathing phenomena that happen before the fact or state of social construction. True morality is seeing others as yourself, before tribal laws instruct you how to treat others. Furthermore, one may suggest that Lex naturalis is a form of tribal law, but that defeats the essence of human reason. Logically, it is an observable fact that living phenomena 'happens' before any formalized social text/institution. Kant said 'the death of dogma is the beginning of morality,' because dogma is a temporary safe-guard constructed around tribal awareness, it is an identity/entity created by man, not nature. Lastly, dogma must be one side-effect of intellectual idolatry, and carried to its logical necessity, dogmatism is a tool used to enslave human beings.

Humans have always been tribal, it's our state of nature (hell even chimps are tribal). We don't need laws for it. We are compassionate towards the members of the tribe and violent towards outsiders. Though you could argue the scarcity of resources has been the main driver of tribal violence. Either way, I don't know where that "Lex naturalis" should come from.

[RhetoricThug]

The Morality of Being.

Humans have always been tribal, it's our state of nature (hell even chimps are tribal). We don't need laws for it. We are compassionate towards the members of the tribe and violent towards outsiders. Though you could argue the scarcity of resources has been the main driver of tribal violence. Either way, I don't know where that "Lex naturalis" should come from.

Natural Law is a system of ethics, but it can also be legal doctrine. In theory and practice, living phenomena are endowed by their existence with certain unalienable rights, biological incarnation (natural state of 'being') should take precedence over tribal conflict (struggle for survival) or ideological convention, because tribal conflict and ideological convention are negative&positive side-effects of 'being.' The concept is simple, one must take into account happenstance, and the idea that you could be on the other end of the food-chain. The story of civilization is the story of mind over matter. Tribal compassion is a form of exclusive primitive compassion, it is generated by precarious circumstance, fear and insecurity; whereas civilized compassion is a rationale inclusive edifice constructed around the nature of 'being,' cognitive order out of chaos, whilst we attempt to keep the entropy of space-time in check. Furthermore, we're not chimps, and we're intelligent enough to nurture the affairs of chimps. If I understand your logic, you're suggesting that mankind should ignore its intellectual gift(s) and return to the jungle?

Natural Law suggests that we should walk in each other's shoes, and consider each other's human plight before taking flight or engaging in a fight. Dialogue before diatribe. Also, moral relativism or discernment can be used if a tribe violates Natural Law. For instance, diplomacy can be seen as moral relativism, where two parties discuss each other's tribal tendencies. Nonetheless, moral relativism should be used after a thorough investigation of the human situation. In other words- If one party blatantly disregards Natural Law, moral relativism should be applied. We need to understand each other through reason, not through tribal/ideological conflict because the art of war is the art of preventing war... Civil society, process and praxis shall lift our spirit to the stars.

[Rugoz]

Tribal compassion is a form of primitive compassion, it is generated by precarious circumstance, fear and insecurity; whereas civilized compassion is a rationale edifice constructed around the nature of 'being,' cognitive order out chaos, while we attempt to keep the entropy of space-time in check. We're not chimps, and we're intelligent enough to nurture the affairs of chimps. If I understand your logic, you're suggesting that mankind should ignore their intellectual gift(s) and return to the jungle?

Natural Law suggests that we should walk in each other's shoes, and consider each other's human plight before taking flight or engaging in a fight. Dialogue before diatribe. We need to understand each other through reason, not through tribal/ideological conflict... Civil society, process and praxis shall lift our spirit to the stars.

Reason can serve as a basis for objective ethics to the extent humans can improve their well-being at the expense of nobody else. In practice that is virtually impossible. As for 'walking in each other's shoes and consider each other's human plight', while a nice normative principle, it's an unsolvable information problem.

[RhetoricThug]

Reason can serve as a basis for objective ethics to the extent humans can improve their well-being at the expense of nobody else. In practice that is virtually impossible.

Why is that virtually impossible? It is a matter of perception, structure (educate) human perception through the environment and convergent evolution will take of the rest. Human technologies as environments shape perception. Eventually, we will technologically eliminate the 'others' and view the I as WE, because we're collectively one being/tribe.

As for 'walking in each other's shoes and consider each other's human plight', while a nice normative principle, it's an unsolvable information problem.

I disagree, we've been slowly solving this problem since the dawn of language. Human communication technologies bridge non-local gaps, and eventually telepathy will solve the information problem. The internet is an early telepathic building set, right now we're learning how to cope with too much information. The post-electric age quickens human evolution because it speeds up communication. In the future, you'll be able to inhabit all known forms of human expression/experience.

[Rugoz]

Why is that virtually impossible? It is a matter of perception, structure (educate) human perception through the environment and convergent evolution will take of the rest. Human technologies as environments shape perception. Eventually, we will technologically eliminate the 'others' and view the I as WE, because we're collectively one being/tribe.

I disagree, we've been slowly solving this problem since the dawn of language. Human communication technologies bridge non-local gaps, and eventually telepathy will solve the information problem. The internet is an early telepathic building set, right now we're learning how to cope with too much information. The post-electric age quickens human evolution because it speeds up communication. In the future, you'll be able to inhabit all known forms of human expression/experience.

[Rugoz]

delete

[RhetoricThug]

@Rugoz What would you like me to explain?

[Rich]

Traditional Judaism is not a slave religion its anything but. Its a form of national socialism. It encourages the independence and autonomy of the individual Jew but enforces commitment to the Volk, the necessary collective needed to defend the individuals liberty. though its vigorous but sophisticated racist ideology it allowed to Jew to survive the millennia as a collective identity and as individuals in considerable numbers.

Hitler like St Paul and maybe the Buddha I suspect of being a homosexual. Hitler like St Paul created an ideology to cover up their failures as traditional men" and reinvent themselves as Heroes. Not being interested in women saves a lot of energy that can be channelled into other fanatical pursuits. Hitler characterised the Jews as umanly cowards incapable of fighting, but saw Islam as a warrior religion. Well Israel has put paid to that nonsense. Israel has been wonderful to behold as it has completely smashed the stereotype of the Jew as incapable of fighting. The Jews routed the Muslims as the Christians did over the preceding two centuries.

I don't have problem with Jews being Jewish supremacist, were not the Incas and the Aztecs supremacist racists? and what of the Zulus, the Apache or the Mohawk. And don't get me started on the Papa New Guineans. I have a problem with White Europeans being Jewish supremacists. If Jews have the right to a Jewish State for a Jewish people, why do we not have the right to our own states.

Racism is entirely normal. If we do have creator then its his fault. That's the thing I could never get about Christianity, why is God always whining about Human beings. Well God you invented us. How Old are you God? At least 4000 years old and that's a conservative estimate. Isn't it about time you took some responsibility for your own creation. I have no interest in Christian sin or in the SJW secular version.

But I must say I disagree with the video. Victimhood and resentment is not confined to the left. Victimhood is the currency of politics and always has been. Did not Caesar complain he was victimised by the Senate before he crossed the Tiber. And then Brutus and Cassius whined in their turn that they had been oppressed by Caesar.