There is a fundamental difference in thinking between the independent-minded and the dependent-minded — as well as the faithful and atheistic. 

When I come from a place of abundance and wholeness, acting in service to others is a natural result, after all, 'my cup runneth over.'  But if I come from a place of fear, desperation, and lack, it is relatively unfathomable to consider giving of what little I have when I am in such dire need myself.

This highlights the Spiritual path.  Without a sacred view, indeed the world looks to be a dark place.  And frankly, no amount of legislation can ever fix that.

My reaction after reading this quote again many years after posting my initial comments is that while we must have the right to a free conscience — that is to say the right to think for oneself — we are never 'free' from the consequences of those thoughts and the words and actions that may spring from them.

I must be able to make mistakes if I am ever to learn from them.  Society in general does try to help me not make really bad mistakes with potentially fatal consequences, but I suppose if I want to be free, I have to be willing to take responsibility, too.

I like the words of Jiminy Cricket who served as Pinocchio's 'conscience':

“A conscience is that still small voice that people won't listen to. That’s just the trouble with the world today, you see.”

I meant to bring attention to this bit: "this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism."  Even Mussolini knew fascism was on the Left!  Fascists are leftists!  So, I suppose on Mussolini's scale, classic Liberalism is on the Right... Today, though, I would say Liberalism in the original sense is above left and right and is the true guiding star for a free people.

The Germans were all for fascism when they elected Hitler, too.  Reason #768 why democracy was despised by the Founders of a republican form of government.  Every dictatorial fascist/communist government was established through socialist democracy — see Nicaragua for the latest flavor.  The platitudes of socialism are very attractive to an uneducated populace, and the results are always the same... 

America may be too far gone now.  Without a people raised in republican virtues, even a revolution would not help, because as soon as the dust settles, the same statist form would be rebuilt.

The biggest political hit job ever pulled off is to equate 'the right' with Hitler.  Hitler's fascism was only to the right of Lenin's communism — both are versions of socialism/collectivism.  The entire left-right spectrum is on the collectivist scale — true republican, representative government is not even on it.  Individualism is at the top of a triangle, collectivism/statism is the base.

If the author was unknown for this quote, it would be 100% embraced by the Democrat Party today (and many Republicans, unfortunately).

Absolutely true.  Whenever a sound argument against socialism is made, inevitably the proponent of socialism will say that 'true socialism' has never been tried or properly implemented, when in truth, the false promises of socialism have been tried many, many times and failed miserably.  Hundreds of millions of people have been murdered by their own governments for not bowing to the party line. 

The key to a socialist revolution is an uneducated youth and nihilistic adults that would rather burn it all down than take responsibility for the conditions and qualities of their own lives.

Mike, I think you are making a distinction between forced altruism and voluntary charity.  As indispensable as morality is, it cannot be legislated.  An immoral people will always end up enslaved, no matter the statutes passed — it is an inevitable consequence of natural law.

In a free society, I can say 'this is mine.'  In statist societies, the State lays claim to what is mine — it is theirs first, then they will decide what I may keep.  Socialism/Communism lays claim to everything as 'theirs' and distributes it according to what they say you need.

It is the property-less that most clamor for socialism, even though in America, all can own property.  But those roped in by welfare schemes and easy 'credit' (debt) remain perpetually indentured, and rather than breaking free, they want everyone else to be indentured, too — after all, it is only 'fair.'

Ice Ages are marked for their low CO2 levels.  The climate has been 'warming' for the last 20,000+ years.  CO2 levels have been 4x higher and life flourished.  Let's not confuse CO2 with pollution, nor discount the fact that CO2 has a tiny contribution to the 'greenhouse effect' — water vapor and cloud formations affect global temperatures magnitudes higher that CO2. 

All we need do is look to the proposed solutions to see the con — higher taxes, carbon credits, reduced American production levels, economic losses, more money-printing, and increased power for governments — all furthering authoritarian socialist outcomes while the politburo gets rich.  Anyone with eyes can see it.

Thanks, Ken, for an insider's honest perspective of what many of us on the outside have noticed.  The claims of 'experts' most often go unchallenged, and the counter arguments of others in the field are usually censored or ignored to keep the gravy train rolling and the State's usurpation marching on.

This didn't age well...

Never has this been made more clear than today!

The juggling match is easily resolved when we put things in their proper context.  For example, the 1st amendment is a limitation on what the government can legislate regarding religion, the press and speech. 

There actually is no 'freedom of speech' — no one is free from the consequences of what they think, say, or do, only that the government has not been given the 'power' to regulate speech.  However, if words or actions violate another's rights like causing harm or injury, the act can be adjudicated in a court of common law.

Yes, we are 'free' but not free from consequences of violations of the laws of nature — and the 'common law' is an attempt to adjudicate according to our best understanding of the laws of nature and of nature's God (Mike says it better than I do 😎).

The principle intent of a republican form of government is to protect the liberty and property of the people from a government playing God.

The 'truth' is not broadcast — it must be sought for earnestly, starting with being honest with oneself.  That is what leads to true awakening.  'Know the truth, and the truth will make you free.'

Apparently our diversion from the ideals of Independence began a long time ago — how far we have diverted from the freedom and independence bequeathed to us by the Founders. 

Yet, I've travelled the world, and I have not witnessed within any other country the degree of freedom and diversity of opinion as there is in America.  We haven't lost it yet, and it appears that this is a perpetual process that each generation must take upon itself to further.

Mike's distinction not withstanding, our 'rights' are inherent, and our 'powers' are limited only by our abilities.  Rightful power would be power exercised in accord with our rights.

When chartering a republican form of government, the 'powers' of the government come from the rights of the people who have chartered it.  Since power is prone to abuse when the ability to exercise power contrary to the 'rights' to it is left unopposed, a system of checks and balances is incorporated so that power is distributed across categories and classes.  Without that, the possession of power becomes centralized and unchecked; thus the maxim, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Constitution is no more a 'living' document than is any other contract.  The Constitution is a 'charter' agreed upon by the signatories to it.  It is the rule book for the government's existence — only powers granted to it are 'lawful.' 

The Bill of Rights are amendments to that charter that clarify even further the restrictions imposed upon the government.  The Bill of Rights grants no rights but explicitly limits what the government may do.  Changes to the Constitution must adhere to the amendment process.

As Einstein has stated, the strength of the Constitution is dependent upon the 'living' to defend it.

This makes the distinction between Common Law and Commercial Law.  In common law, cases are adjudicated on the basis of a violation of one's rights by another.  In commercial law (colorable law or equity law), cases are adjudicated on the basis of the rules (regulations) that apply to contracts or agreements and any violation of those terms.  I am bound to keep the promises I have made in a commercial agreement, but I cannot be forced into a contract without my consent.

The coopting of the common law jurisdiction by the commercial law jurisdiction binds the common man to its reams and reams of regulations by treating humans as commercial entities thus subject to those rules. 

This is why I often say 'Americans don't know who they are.'  The false premise that we are born into subservience to the State (i.e. collective) is at the very heart of the transformation of a free nation into a statist tyranny.

I do not refute being born into a group — like an 'American.'  My argument is against the notion that being an 'American' imposes any responsibilities upon me against my will.  My responsibilities as an American are the same as my responsibilities as a freeman — imposed upon me only by the Laws of Nature, not the fact that I belong to a group.  I am free to act in opposition to the laws of nature but not without consequences self-enforced by nature itself.

When a group or collective create their own rules that everyone in the group must follow (like in a corporation or a club), I am bound only by my own agreement to follow them as a condition of membership.  If I am Shanghaied into the group without my consent, like a slave chained to a ship or born into a communist country like China, my 'duty' to be a slave is imposed upon me — and that is tyrannical.

If the "bad news" is that I have been born a slave and thus duty-bound to the collective, you are making the argument that Americans have already lost their freedom, so get with the bloody program, I reject that outright as 'Hogwash.'

OK, so 'groupthink' is no different than collectivist thought.  A cooperative unit or organization is again a voluntary association — if it has been 'imposed' upon me, it's not cooperative but communistic (i.e. authoritarian). 

The point is that an act of conscience is an act of the individual.  Sure, each of us have been impressed upon by others, but in the end, my conscience is min,e and I am responsible for any forms of its expression — I do not have responsibilities imposed upon me by the collective.  The Laws of Nature still apply, which are not a product of the collective, and they are immutable by a group or an individual.

That is quite the 'take' on a quote you agree with... I don't think that is what Hesse is talking about.

Let us remember that a minority can control a majority to crush the weaker opposition.  Democracy inevitably becomes the rule of an elite minority over all using the subservient masses to crush dissent from individuals acting in their own sovereign capacity.  Collectivism is the herd that crushes out the individual.

The choices have been rigged for a long time.  But since Trump, the democrats don't even bother to let the people decide the nominees.  What the hell is a 'superdelegate'? Hillary, Kamala, and even dem candidates for Senate were hand-picked without anyone voting for them in primaries.  The Democrats are the most undemocratic of all!  One-party rule forever is the goal.

Trump turned the political establishment on its head.  He was picked to lose against Hillary, but the establishment got complacent and didn't cover all their bases with a few counties they were sure would vote the party line.

When Trump got elected, all hell broke loose!  And the establishment made sure the election was rigged in 2020 to kick Trump out.  The fact that Trump was able to win in 2024 against all odds just goes to show that the corrupt Deep State is on the ropes.  They so desperately need to go back to their rigged game they will do anything.  

It all proves the point: it's the COUNTING and cheating has been the way for a LONG time.

'Democracy' is the slippery slope of socialism into communism. 

There is a profound difference between a republican form of government and a 'democracy' which is but another form of statism, i.e. the supremacy of the state.  That is the real distinction, republican vs. statist government.  A republican form of government is practically illegal now, and is certainly moot if it is not enforced as per the Constitution. 

Statism is truly unlawful and unconstitutional in any of its forms from 'democratic' socialism to fascism to communism to monarchy/dictatorship.  This is why a communist can make a statement like Emma Goldman's. 

One-party rule is the end result until finally a dictatorship is established — see most recently Nicaragua for the playbook, which has just outlawed elections.  Socialism is always pointed in that direction.

Look also to 'blue' cities and states which have no republican candidates, these jurisdictions become increasingly communist — which is the strategy.  Look at NYC, LA, Seattle where communists are more popular than republicans.  This is the way of 'democracy.'