Posted on 07/19/2011 10:34:41 PM PDT by Kartographer
Gerald Celente, publisher of The Trends Journal, discusses why we are heading into the greatest recession, US is bankrupt by proxy, the inevitability of war, and the uselessness of higher education.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
He’s right in most of this.
Celente is seen as an “alarmist” by most despite the fact that he is often right.
Marking
check this out...by a good friend of mine...he won the ten thousand dollar prize from Alex Jones...
http://godrewardsthefearless.com/episodes/god-rewards-the-fearless-summer-2011-trailer/
A prediction of times to come?
I'd have to agree that some "bitter medicine" is coming down the mountain toward us.
Nah.
After the real collapse, women won't be commanding/instructing combat squads, etc like in that trailer.
Gerald is calling for using Direct Democracy and becoming more like Switzerland. No thanks. I’ll pass.
BTW, this interviewer is a Lew Rockwell disciple. Rockwell and Murry Rothbard are Reagan hating anarchists.
4later
What do you think they will be doing blam?
building my bunker
Yes, Gerald sees what’s going on and is not afraid to open his mouth.
However! I suspect there is more to him than meets the eye. A couple of things make me suspect that he is influenced by the old Soviet Communism. I have heard him call for massive “Workers of the World Unite version II” protests. Also in this video he calls for “direct democracy” like the protests in the middle east.
Makes me suspicious............
We are sending our jobs, money and technology to China.
what else could happen?
Wake up America. We are committing national suicide.
...”Celente is seen as an “alarmist” by most despite the fact that he is often right”...
Sounds like what the masses thought of the Old Testament prophets who told the people what was going to take place. The US will go down..Too many Narcissists are at the top of government and institutional management here. They use our common people and the poor as pawns in their vicious games for power, influence and money and they only care about themselves. Their goal is to have everyone dependent on them for survival..When that happens they will be dictators..
bump for later
I am as well. There was a point in the interview where we get a little insight into his character - the part where he felt stepped upon in college by his professor and could never fit in anywhere - clearly he has a big psychological chip on his shoulder regarding ‘the rich and powerful’ so he enjoys sticking a thumb in their eye whenever possible. His idea of Direct Democracy sounds more like an embrace of the French Revolution than the American Revolution. That ended very badly for all concerned.
That could be.
America was founded as a hierarchical representative republic, not as a democracy. At some the lowest and small levels of the hierarchy, yes it is a direct democracy. But the founders understood that direct democracy did not scale well, so they emplaced a hierarchy of representation.
The progressive era amendments of the Constitution effectively destroyed and leveled major parts of that hierarchy of representation. Supreme Court rulings under FDR and later destroyed and leveled other major parts.
The 17th Amendment's (1913) direct election of Senators destroyed much of the respect built into the Federal government for the autonomously operating states, because without Senators representing the interests of the State Government, that is the legislature of the state which appointed each Senator for a six year term, the Senators came to represent one one but themselves, and thus became overrun by those in thrall to economic interests independent of the State.
Woman's sufferage was implemented in the US Federal elections by 1920's 19th Amendment. As nice and empowering to women as that right to vote may sound, it destroyed another key part of hierarchical structure America became great respecting. And what part was that? THE FAMILY. It is not exactly correct to say that women did NOT have a Federal vote before 1913. They did have a vote, and it was actually a far more powerful vote. But that more powerful vote came through the means of the family's representative agent: the Husband.
A more powerful vote? Of course! Today husbands and wives are split apart in voting, each may cancel the vote of the other. Politicians will exploit every division between good solid people (and married people are good solid people just for being married) in order to have those informed votes cancel each other, so as to leave the marginal votes of the even more exploitable and easily swayed, the single, to decide the election. In any case the vote of the family, the family household as a legal establishment in the hierarchy of governance represented by one vote, was lost.
The so-called high-principle of "One Man One Vote" is another example of destruction of natural hierarchies of respect in distributed government. It also was a way of rolling up and centralizing power. Many of our states had legislatures with two houses, one house of legislators directly elected from districts of equal population apportioned by census, the other a senate of representatives of incorporated political districts, Counties.
The Courts forced one-man-one-vote upon the states, and thus leveled a lot of the respect between state legislatures and County governments.
A huge mass of people, voters, numbering in excess of 50K or so can hardly be said to elect any one for good reason, because such a huge mass combines so many conflicting legitimate interests that the outcome is nearly always decided by marginal issues and fan-type alliances, where both the issues and fan-type alliances are driven by mass-marketing using emotional short-term interests instead of the long-term, well-considered interests.
The Founders tried hard to craft a system which would encourage the lower levels in the hierarchy to appoint the most honorable and energetic persons, persons of clear proven good character who understood and did abide by the high duty of agency, as representative agents of the appointing or electing group.
The Founders understood the duties of agents, agents by common law must have a higher regard for the duty to others and for the property of others entrusted them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.