AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
- jgl358
- Jun 12
- 3 min read
There is an important distinction that needs to be seen and understood when talking about the Founders of America who were true capitol "P" PROGRESSIVES of their day. They structured a never before proposed theory of governance where the individual's freedoms were seen as paramount over and above governments power. And today's lower case "p" more politically active and radical, you must say, do and think as we instruct because we are morally superior on all subjects politically "progressive". Just take a look at the UK today to appreciate my point and the distinction.
"Thousands of people in the UK have been detained and questioned by police over online posts deemed threatening or offensive".
"These laws criminalize causing distress by sending messages that are “grossly offensive,” or by sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” via electronic communications networks."
Define: "Offensive", "Threatening", "Indecent", "Menacing Character, "Grossly Offensive"? (Grossly Offensive!?) Defining what is or is not offensive or threatening is purely a subjective politically strategic whim in many of these cases. This is exactly what the "progressives" in America support and promote. And this is precisely what distinguishes America from all other countries. Unless you have clearly stated that you are violent and are physically threatening others and are just sharing your opinion about controversial subjects your speech in America is protected. There are however common-sense lines between opinions and direct violent threats to harm or worse.
The Founders, true capitol "P" Progressives of their day, created a form of governance never before seen installed and founded in a perspective of an Objectively structured law and justice system and a limited government in regard to the peoples fundamental personal individual Rights. Rights to live, think and speak as they please within the confines and protections of the Objectively structured founding document parameters.
And that Objective theme carries through in all its founding structuring documentation. The individual's freedoms are not compelled or forced by government because they are structured in a theory of Objectivity. Where the government's ability to force or compel the individual's speech or behavior are drastically limited and constrained. By design.
Not so in the Uk, Canada, Brazil, CCP China, Russia, North Korea, it is a long list of Subjectively structured forms of governance.
Today's lower case "p" so called "progressives" however entire theory of operation is based in its Subjective opinion about what and how people must think, speak and act and they are willing to use force in order to compel behavior. What MUST be accepted and what MUST be Compelled by government force via arbitrary Subjectively conceived policy and through the law and justice and court system. The exact opposite of true Objective, Progressive thought and action regarding the individual's freedoms and Rights.
"We now live in a Wikipedia society — where anyone can change the meaning of a word to satisfy some misguided or politically correct social engineering goal. Progressives have become masters of vocabulary manipulation and are constantly changing the traditional meaning of words to fit their political agenda."
For government to force and compel behavior or speech is antithetical to Americas founding documents and theory of operation which were and are truly capitol "P" PROGRESSIVE, historically revolutionary and Objective.
If you are a part of a movement that must sacrifice the Objectivity of the Constitution in order to install an oppressive Subjective "ISM", compelled through force, is it really worth it in the long run? The Constitution is structured to be flexible and adjustable over time as needed, by design. And it has successfully operated as such for well over 240 years, why the big push to destroy it?
In order to install a "Superior" Objective "progressive" interpretation about how people should think speak and act? I do not think that you really agree with that proposition.
Monarchism, Socialism, Communism, Democratic Constitutionalism:
Choose your "ISM" wisely and make the distinction.
Are You Paying Attention Yet America? JGL 6/12/25
Comments