Washington Post reports &quot;demonic activity&quot; at Trump rally

lifeworship (66) · 8 years ago

So pure superstition is what passes for "real news" at the Washington Post, eh? We'll be back to burning witches in no time. Why do you think it was that Trump left the WaPo out of his list of media destroying America? They clearly are.

$0.00

stevescoins (68) · 8 years ago

Why do you think it was that Trump left the WaPo out of his list of media destroying America?

He probably ran out of breath before he got to them LOL.

@lifeworship , I'm putting together a list of Steemit writers who contribute towards understanding/fighting the Information War...would you like to be included?

$0.00

6 votes

lifeworship (66) · 8 years ago

I would be pleased to be included, though I think you can find people better at it than myself.

$0.00

3 votes

stevescoins (68) · 8 years ago

Some people might be better, or they might also have an agenda of their own ;>

Thanks for stepping up!

$0.00

4 votes

djsonic (58) · 8 years ago

It's very interesting post!!
Exchellent work :)

$0.00

pitterpatter (62) · 8 years ago (edited)

The Washington Slime never ceases to amaze me how low they can go!

$0.00

stevescoins (68) · 8 years ago

and they aim to go lower every day!

$0.00

creatr (70) · 8 years ago

It is my considered opinion that all human government (as we know it) is inherently demonic:

"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." - Ephesians 6:12

ANY individual or organization that sets about to exercise the initiation of force, i.e. to rule over other sovereign human beings is an immoral, evil entity. 😄😇😄

$0.00

stevescoins (68) · 8 years ago

Giving you an honest reply would require a full blog post, I think ;>

To very much simplify, I will say that I do not think that government is a necessary evil, but rather a dangerous tool; when humans do not take their duties and responsibilities of self-government seriously, bad things happen.

$0.00

creatr (70) · 8 years ago

Hi Steve, Thanks for responding to my comment.

I agree that government is not a necessary evil. I have, through a lifetime of observation and contemplation, come to believe that it is an utterly unnecessary evil. The reason it is a dangerous tool is because (as presently practiced) is is based on the use of initiated force, which I believe to be fundamentally immoral.

Can we be "self-governing" without initiating force against one another? I believe it is possible and that it must be tried. In the meanwhile, I will "call out" what I see as the evil of "government as we know it."

Have you ever encountered the brilliant folk of the Zero Aggression Project? Although I might split hairs with them over terminology and details of approach, I find what they have to say brilliantly focused and refreshingly straightforward and simple to comprehend.

Should you decide to write the "full, honest, blog-post sized" reply, please drop me a note alerting me? :) I would love to read it. ;)

$0.00

stevescoins (68) · 8 years ago

I think the major point of my disagreement with the zero aggression concept is that some people are scumbags; IF we were all reasonable people, then there would be no need for anyone to use force.

But some people will lie,steal, threaten, or hurt because it is in their nature. Some people will try to dominate and master others. I do not think that all humans are driven by the same motives...and even if we were all to be socialized under the same cultural conditions at an optimum, there would still be a minimum amount of outliers in humans that behaved as what I called scumbags.

Theses are not even all on the street level either, they are what makes government a dangerous tool rather than what it should be, a forum for helping each other.

$0.00

"Are there exceptions to the Zero Aggression Principle?"

creatr (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

Steve, I'm glad we're having this discussion because I think we may have just uncovered a possible misunderstanding of the "zero aggression" concept.

I couldn't agree more with you that there is a sizable set of people who have "shut down" consciences, and who will blithely harm the rest of us. The Zero Aggression principle does not preclude dealing with scumbags; it allows for the use of force defensively.

The ZAP Project website has a marvelous collection of what they call "mental levers" to help clarify thinking about these things, and I think this one may apply here:

I really recommend browsing their complete collection. I find it refreshingly clear and concise.

Another great author who recognizes what you've just said, i.e. that there are sociopathic scumbags in the world who will never stop aggressing against the rest of us, is Paul Rosenberg. Here's a great article of his, FYI:

"CAN ANY GOVERNMENT BE MORAL?"

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the sad truth is that these scumbags gravitate towards positions in government "as we know it" and that is why I am so adamant about the need to eliminate such force and coercion based systems.

My sense is that we are substantially in agreement here, just perhaps "out of synch" with terminology and perspective?

$0.00

stevescoins (68) · 8 years ago

the sad truth is that these scumbags gravitate towards positions in government

I think that we have some very similar views, and I should have been upfront in that I haven't examined the Zero Aggression Principle in full due to my own biases.

I will take a look; and thank you for the references which directly address my objections ;> I can't say it will be soon, though.

I think we have a looong slog ahead of us to get rid of the current crops (multiple, with multiple agendas) of trash in power just here in the USA. It would be best if we have an agreement on where we are going in the future.

$0.00