Sunday, August 19, 2012

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.


  1. Ron Paul's greatest strength is also his greatest weakness.

    He is the exception that confirms the rule goverments just fail to work for individuals.

    1. He certainly is the exception that confirms this rule and many others.

      As to his greatest strength / greatest weakness...I bought into the idea that his entire purpose in life was education (choosing, for his reasons, to do so through the political stage) - I don't know if he agrees with this, although I suspect at this point he likely does.

      In any case, as I viewed his purpose as one of education, I find nothing to cry about - he has been a resounding success.

    2. I totally agree with his career as frontrunner of personal liberty being a resounding success.

      Although, many people including myself consider him a bit of a paradox.

      It's like being a part of the maffia, pointing rightfully so the immorality of it all, yet refusing to revoke your membership.

      For example, the endorsment of Rand Paul of Mitt Romney.

      Many accuse Rand Paul for selling out.

      To me actually, this was inevitable. It's just the nature of this creature called government.

      Wether you want to or not, in order of being in government, you have to be a politician.

      Like, in order to be a fish you have to be in the water. You can blame the fish or the water, to me that's just nature.