Progressive Sense

The delay has some marijuana-legalization advocates outraged, less so because they’ll have to wait a few months to buy pot and more so because they feel the legislature is trying to subvert the will of the people by fundamentally changing what they voted for.

Governments first focus upon sustaining and growing their power without exception demonstrably from history through this moment.

Yet, “progressives” passionately press to give them more “slippery slope” power, and then are surprised when that power is selfishly leveraged against the masses.

There is no actual sector line between the public and private sectors when it comes to power.

There is one tumultuous oligarchy made up of top-ranking members of both sectors that serve themselves above all else.

Keep believing that we can sufficiently trust the government with the overwhelmingly complex set of flatly unconstitutional powers (mainly grounded in the obviously illegally redefined Commerce Clause, thanks to the New Deal and Republican hypocrisy), “progressives”. It is a powerful delusion that horribly forms the base of your political stance.

Turn politically right, and we run into the style of oligarchy that rules by defining your liberty via their definition of morality.

The masses lose either way (as is clearly happening now).

An actually (i.e. concisely defined) self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. the liberty to do no maximally conclusively — not subjectively, nor weakly scientifically — proven harm) is critical to give the masses upfront leverage to prevent abusive law, but tragically nobody but yours truly is making that logically powerful case — because popular delusion usually trumps demonstrated truth, but I remain confident that you will smartly adapt accordingly.

It is a delusion that is continuously reinforced by selfish oligarchical interests, which are usually ironically disguised as public benefit (e.g. cannabis prohibition, which has concretely been only destructive against public safety — noting I put several years of hard work into forming that undeniable conclusion).

I am surprised that so many more smart people do not recognize the aforementioned problematic political base enough to turn “progressivism” into genuine progressivism by following up on what our revolutionary founding fathers progressively did against the abuse of law — and shore up constitutional strength by establishing concise judicial constructs instead of muddy ones (e.g. the Commerce Clause) that have destroyed the entire point of even having a Constitution in the “land of the free”.

A concisely defined unalienable right to liberty (with religious and gender discrimination removed from the language of our national founding) means the burden of maximally conclusive proof (i.e. demonstrated harm) always remains on the shoulders of the sadomoralists and sadoequalists leveraging power for themselves “to protect the children”.

Sadomoralists and sadoequalists are the most destructive group of people by far, but they often retain “slippery slope” power via the apathy of others.

A concisely defined unalienable right to liberty simply forms logical leverage that acts as a powerful wall to keep their abuses away from mass harm.

Murder, assault (rape, and so on), theft, and slander remain illegal.

Using a plant that is scientifically safe (based upon the fact that no experimental science concludes any harm — and the thousands of years of empirical proof), having any form of purely adult consensual sex (including that with a financial component), and so on, must be legal by already existing constitutional law at all levels of government — thanks to the ninth amendment (which can only serve to judicially recognize our fundamental rights, despite its illegal disarming to the contrary) and the supremacy clause (which trumps state and local law).

It means that no active law is needed against any form of discrimination, because fundamental law grants equal rights to all citizens.

That is logically the path to at least national greatness, but it sadly is a lonely path for yours truly, while hypocrisy reigns supreme to enrich oligarchs at the serious risk of national collapse (e.g. from a fictitious economy made largely of questionable credit and unacceptable national debt, and “slippery slope” laws that historically form oppression that reaches critical mass to ignite a violent backlash).

It may be (and hopefully is) just me, but I feel some powerfully tragic energy on the horizon, and hopefully the home of the brave is genuine.

Prompting article: What’s causing Massachusetts weed paranoia?

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield, Respect Cannabis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: