The State is Criminal; Long Live the State

So says Gerald Celente, in a display of cognitive dissonance in today’s interview at the Daily Bell. He does a good job of pointing to the criminality of the system, and then looks to the system to provide salvation.

First, the criminality in foreign policy:

I can tell you how much immoral. How about starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – in Iraq with the proof that a war was started that killed at least a half a million people that was started under fake reasons; lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. An Afghan war that's the longest war in American history, the war in Libya that they called a time-limed, scope-limited kinetic action that's destroyed the entire nation.

Then the criminality of crony-capitalism:

You want to talk about immorality? How about the "too big to fail"? The government mandated immoral act of stealing money from the American people to give it to the banks, financiers and favored corporations?

This sums up pretty well the current situation.

He is able to glimpse the solution:

Under capitalism there's no such thing [as too big to fail]. You're not too big to fail; you fail. Big, small, medium, you fail – it's capitalism.

Yet he cannot draw logical conclusions from this insight.  His solution?

…put back the laws and acts that were passed that prohibited the multinationals from taking over the world, particularly the United States, laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Robinson-Patman Act and, of course, in the banking sector, the Glass-Steagall Act.

Please stop.  The criminal enterprise known as the state, described so well in the paragraphs cited above, somehow is able to morally and judiciously implement monopoly-enforced regulations that will be successful at taming the corruption? 

Why not let the market regulate, as is implied in Celente’s advocacy of allowing failing enterprises to fail?

Celente moves on to big-business bashing…for all the wrong reasons:

You probably could not count the hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses and entrepreneurs that have been wiped out because of Walmarts. You couldn't count how many hardware stores, stationary stores, pharmacists, small farms have been put out of business because of the ConAgras of the world and the CVSs and Home Depots and Staples and Office Depots and Lowes.

The Wal-Marts of the world survive and thrive because they satisfy customers.  That they also advocate for and are beneficiaries of government intervention in the market is the issue that should be addressed.  Yet, Celente calls for more regulation, and at the same time advocates that the market (meaning the individual “votes” of each customer) should not be allowed to determine winners and losers.

Now to the oft-repeated shell game regarding the “private” central bank:

Most people don't even know what a central bank is and they still believe the lie that the Federal Reserve is a quasi-government institution when it's not. It's a totally private bank. Most people don't even know that. So most people are uninformed and like in all countries, they follow their leaders. Very few people rebel.

Different central banks around the world have different legal structures.  Getting into a debate about what is private and what is public is a shell game and is completely immaterial.  Central banks are monopolies created by the state.  Full stop.

Legislatures passed laws to create central banks – in whatever form they take.  They passed the laws, they can repeal the laws.  That the bank is public, private, or some-combination is immaterial – central banks are creatures of state creation, and can be eliminated by legislative action.

Instead of calling for the panoply of regulation as he does in this interview, might Celente just call for the repeal of legislation that has enabled central banking?  Simple.

Celente is also anti-immigration:

I'm in favor of bringing in all the people we need but when you can't take care of your own, you want to bring in more?

Who is this “we”?  Who is the “your” that is not able to “take care of [their] own”?  Who is the “you” that wants to bring in more?

Stop talking in terms of government action, when you complain about the immorality of government action.

Celente is one of several who are very well able to identify the state as a criminal enterprise in foreign and crony-capitalist matters, yet looks to the state in terms of salvation via regulation. 

For his efforts in terms of pointing out the immorality, he should be commended.  However, he does a disservice by advocating government action and abandonment of market principles as the solution.

It is not possible.

Gerald Celente’s New Age

Today’s interview at The Daily Bell is with Gerald Celente.  In the interview, Celente spends a good amount of time focusing on his new age views and a new age event where he will be speaking.  Many of his comments on various subjects in this interview and his lack of missing the obvious suggest that perhaps this new age focus should take center stage for Celente in his future endeavors. 

Daily Bell: Speaking of leadership, let's turn to politics, of which you are not a fan. Nonetheless, you are skilled in political analysis. What's happened to Dr. Ron Paul's campaign?

Gerald Celente: He lacked the fire and passion. I said this when it was going on, that he would be marginalized at the debates. He would talk over the audience's head and he turned off a very large potential audience. For the record, I was asked to go meet Dr. Paul when the campaign started. I declined. Look, you can't have it both ways. He didn't stand up and fight hard enough to gain his position.

It is difficult to understand what fire and passion Dr. Paul was lacking.  For forty years he has been the singular political voice for many subjects that are off-limits to the mainstream and accepted dialogue:  The Federal Reserve, U.S. Empire, and aid to foreign governments (with special venom aimed at him for not unequivocally supporting Israel).  These are just three of dozens of positions that Dr. Paul has taken that have placed him in the crosshairs of every establishment character and institution.  It takes fire and passion to stand in front of the oncoming train every day and in full public view.  It takes even more courage.

The shallow critics quickly point out Dr. Paul’s flaws: if only he was handsome like Romney, if only he spoke as well as Gingrich.  Now Celente criticizes Dr. Paul for a lack of fire and passion.  What type of fire and passion is Celente searching for?  Obama certainly has fire and passion.  If this is Celente’s desire, I say we have had enough fire and passion from politicians.

Here's the truth: He let his core constituency down. They were fighting harder than he was. He lacked the passion.

I am sure there are many people who feel Ron Paul let them down.  I have yet to hear a reason why that does not have underlying it some belief that Ron Paul is a god, and should be perfect.  I have yet to hear a rational path on how Ron Paul could have become President.

What more could one person have done?  There is nothing more any politician has done in the last 200 years in the United States for freedom and liberty than Ron Paul has done – he stands alone in this history.  For this, some of his “constituency” feels let down?  The only way this feeling is possible is to have held the hope that Ron Paul would be as significant a figure as Christ in His second coming. 

Does any serious thinker believe Ron Paul could have been President?  For Ron Paul to be elected President he would have to overcome the entire political, party, media, corporate, military, “intelligence,” and banking machines ALL opposed to this happening.  For those who feel let down, please explain how one man was supposed to do this.

For someone to feel let down suggests that rational thinking is not involved in the calculation.  Ron Paul was not going to win.  But that was not the purpose anyway.  For this to happen, the population would have to be ready.  The population is not ready – they have not been properly taught.  This was the purpose of Ron Paul.  To expect any more from one man, when just five years ago no one was discussing the Fed, foreign wars, etc., on the national stage, is childish and naïve.

Finally, as to his core constituency fighting harder than he was: I am amazed and impressed by the efforts of thousands of volunteers who have worked diligently to realize the success of this most recent campaign.  I take nothing away from them, and hold them in high admiration.

But it is laughable to suggest that anyone worked harder in his campaign than did Ron Paul.  Who stood up in public night after night in the debates, making points never discussed in polite company only to be ridiculed?  Who went from town to town – a never ending schedule of visits to live audiences?

Daily Bell: Does it matter if Obama wins?

Gerald Celente: If Obama wins, it matters because to me, by their deeds you shall know them. And Obama's deeds terrify me. Obama overthrew Libya. Obama is instigating the war in Syria. Have you heard the words "peace plan" attached to either Israel or Palestine since Obama has been in office?

He doesn't even make a pretense of it. To me it's disgusting what the world is letting happen to the Palestinian people. And they are screaming and yelling what Gaddafi was doing to his people and what Assad is doing to his people!

Nobody speaks up for the atrocities against the Palestinian people. I am sick and tired of hearing the word "settlers." This is not an old western where wagons are going across the empty plains ... no, this is a land grab.

Does Celente somehow believe Romney will be different on these subjects?  Why does it matter to him if Obama wins?  Celente is a trend forecaster – making reasoned statements about the future; this is his claim to fame.  Yet here he is coming out against Obama because of his past deeds, while not able to forecast the most obvious trend of a Romney presidency – and that is to take the same foreign policy actions of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush., etc. 

If Celente is not able to forecast this most simple trend, of what use are his other predictions?

Gerald Celente: My belief is when the people are ready, the leaders will appear. These guys now couldn't lead me across the street. Stop following the Pied Piper. The only salvation for the future, as I see it, is that people have to find the greatness within them and when they have the courage, dignity, respect, passion and integrity and they don't cower to power ... only then will they follow leaders who will improve civilization and not destroy it.

If Celente can see this, why can he not see the purpose and benefit of Ron Paul’s effort for what it was, as opposed to for whatever childlike wishes he placed upon it?  The people must be ready – how does Celente suggest they become ready unless someone does the work to make it so?  And for this, he disparages Ron Paul?  Does he not see the “trend” set in motion based on Ron Paul’s efforts?

Daily Bell: Go back to the LIBOR scandal. Our take was that it was a phony scandal. Can you describe it?

Gerald Celente: Oh no, it's not phony at all, it's real. They are rigging the game. They rig the game to make their balance sheets look better; they rig the game so they can play the derivatives market. They rigged the game to cover up how big the panic of '08 was. No, to me it's a totally rigged game.

Daily Bell: Don't central banks fix the price of money every hour of every day?

Gerald Celente: Yes, but so does LIBOR and they have been doing that for 25 years. This goes very deep. It shows you control that so few have. That to me is the story.

There are a few litmus tests about those who speak against power.  One of these is to listen carefully for their view on central banking.

Gerald Celente sees the LIBOR scandal as a manipulation and a tool of exploitation in terms at least equivalent to central banking.  This suggests he is either completely ignorant about the power behind the most controlling institution of the money elite, or he is playing the role of deflecting attention from this institution.  In either case, these comments are enough to disqualify him from being seen as an honest and competent trend forecaster.

Daily Bell: Thank you for speaking out. You are one of the courageous few.

There is nothing courageous to be taken from this interview.  Gerald Celente has no understanding of the benefits of the grass-roots education Ron Paul has provided.  This is a trend worth reflecting upon, not one to be mocked.

He deflects from the central bankers the true scandal, instead pointing to a relatively minor manipulation as the big crime.

Daily Bell: How are your finances after the MF Global debacle?

Gerald Celente: I was hurt by it. Nobody likes having their money stolen but, again, when you tie it all back together, well ... the whole thing is rigged.

Gerald Celente could not protect his own financial well-being from a known insider like Jon Corzine – buying futures for gold instead of the real thing.  His so-called expertise is not to “tie it all back together” after the fact – it is to tie it all together beforehand.  If his failure regarding his own pocketbook was not enough to discount the value of his predictions, his comments and lack of understanding (or worse) in this interview have cemented my belief in his inability in his chosen field.

As an aside: this is the third or fourth time in the last month or so that DB has come out with comments directly or indirectly in attack against Ron Paul.  I do not transfer Celente’s comments in this interview to DB.  But if DB found it worthwhile to make a summary statement praising Celente about his so-called courage, they could have said a simple word about the benefits of Ron Paul’s efforts – they used to do so once upon a time.

Other recent similar episodes I have commented upon here and here.