It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Next Four Years by Gerald Celente

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
www.infowars.com...

Check out the entire article. This is truly the best of Gerald Celente. He may get the timing wrong from time to time on his predictions, but he is spot on with this article. Its up to us. Nobody's going to do it for us.


The Only Change You Can Believe In: For anything significant to change, people must stop playing “follow the leader.” But, if people stop following the leader, then who will lead them? The answer: No one! You must lead yourself.

But self-leadership cannot be bought, given, or imposed. It has to come from within. It begins with expecting nothing from your “leaders” and understanding that everything has to come from you. It means having the courage not to cower to power. The dignity to claim your rightful and sacred place on earth. To respect yourself, demand it of others and show respect to all who merit it … regardless of class or status. The integrity to keep and live by your word. And the passion to live a life of meaning and conviction; for your heart to feel what your mind knows.

This is not an “every man for himself,” manifesto. Rather it is a call for a cooperative of individuals with the courage, dignity, respect, integrity and passion to chart a future that is not dictated and imposed upon them by ruling political parties and the unprincipled and oppressive systems they represent.

There is no “We the People” until “I the Person” is willing to stand up and speak for himself or herself.

For the future to change, the individual must change. When enough individuals change, everything changes.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   


You must lead yourself.
reply to post by frazzle
 


We cant even trust people to leave their hands off of children, or not bite the face off of another human being anymore. Most are not ready to "lead" themselves



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thesmokingman
 


No, I think most are ready. The wierdo freak types are the anomaly, not the other way around. Its just that msm isn't going to get any ratings for talking about your Aunt Sally feeding hungry kids ~ well, unless she gets tased and arrested for doing it.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,

As Robert Michels pointed out, all societies eventually become oligarchies. Wikipedia - Iron law of oligarchy. The process of revolution is simple. An extended period of improvement met with a sudden and severe decline in life style for the worse. Enough people are worse off that they through mob actions remove the leadership and replace it with unrestrained mob actions and violence. Eventually the mob gets tired and work must resume and their representatives are hired to make the darn place work. They are given more power and exert more totalitarian prohibitions in order to restore order. Over time the people stop being involved and the process repeats itself.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I can't remember the exact order, so someone can correct me if this is wrong, but I think the sequence goes something like, from apathy to slavery to rebellion to freedom and back around to apathy. We're probably somewhere between slavery and rebellion right now. But we have very little faith in ourselves and that's sad.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


You just have more faith in the "majority" than do I. I think many people are disgusting, selfish individuals imo.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,

An example of your proposal would be China? I don't see a history of what you propose. I don't see the freedom part, merely the illusion of it. When were we not slaves to the government? Think about all the things that are compulsory. Do you have the freedom to leave the country? No, you do not, not without permission. As soon as the state was created, slavery was assured for everyone. The questions is are they good masters or bad ones. I don't promote it, I recognize it for what it is.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by frazzle
 


You just have more faith in the "majority" than do I. I think many people are disgusting, selfish individuals imo.


They have been conditioned to be that way by bankers clever tricks with money. Debauch the money and the people will become equally debauched. Our founding fathers knew that from studying history and they tried to prevent it from happening again. But of course it did happen again because the oligarchs who always do the debauching of the money are never held to account.

We could learn a lot from an Icelander.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,

An example of your proposal would be China? I don't see a history of what you propose. I don't see the freedom part, merely the illusion of it. When were we not slaves to the government? Think about all the things that are compulsory. Do you have the freedom to leave the country? No, you do not, not without permission. As soon as the state was created, slavery was assured for everyone. The questions is are they good masters or bad ones. I don't promote it, I recognize it for what it is.


I certainly didn't think of China as an example of freedom, but going back to Celente's points, I do agree with him that for the future to change, we must first change ourselves. Of course we have the choice of changing for the better and rejecting slavery, or changing for the worse and becoming as corrupt as those who are already corrupt. Like I said, its up to us.

For my money, we should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,



I certainly didn't think of China as an example of freedom, but going back to Celente's points, I do agree with him that for the future to change, we must first change ourselves. Of course we have the choice of changing for the better and rejecting slavery, or changing for the worse and becoming as corrupt as those who are already corrupt. Like I said, its up to us.


I like Gandhi's approach. Let us consider what type of people would be fighting this revolution. We have the semi-socialist Occupiers and the ultra-conservative militia and Tea Partiers. Hmm, They would overthrow the government and then attack each other in a horrible civil war. The militias would win and enforce a dictatorial right wing government in. That's what usually happens in these situations.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,



I certainly didn't think of China as an example of freedom, but going back to Celente's points, I do agree with him that for the future to change, we must first change ourselves. Of course we have the choice of changing for the better and rejecting slavery, or changing for the worse and becoming as corrupt as those who are already corrupt. Like I said, its up to us.


I like Gandhi's approach. Let us consider what type of people would be fighting this revolution. We have the semi-socialist Occupiers and the ultra-conservative militia and Tea Partiers. Hmm, They would overthrow the government and then attack each other in a horrible civil war. The militias would win and enforce a dictatorial right wing government in. That's what usually happens in these situations.


There's this guy by the name of Michael Rivero of the "what really happened" website who has been saying for awhile now that the government is hoping for a violent revolution because that's the one they can win, but this coming revolution will not be fought with brawn, but with brains. I think we might could do that if we'd only put down our petty differences and put our heads together on it.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I can't remember the exact order, so someone can correct me if this is wrong, but I think the sequence goes something like, from apathy to slavery to rebellion to freedom and back around to apathy. We're probably somewhere between slavery and rebellion right now. But we have very little faith in ourselves and that's sad.



That is unless they found a way to go straight from slavery back to apathy. Forgo the rebellion and the freedom and its a perfect model for an overpowering entity.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I can't remember the exact order, so someone can correct me if this is wrong, but I think the sequence goes something like, from apathy to slavery to rebellion to freedom and back around to apathy. We're probably somewhere between slavery and rebellion right now. But we have very little faith in ourselves and that's sad.



That is unless they found a way to go straight from slavery back to apathy. Forgo the rebellion and the freedom and its a perfect model for an overpowering entity.


Apathy is a benign form of slavery, I suppose. Its just less overt because it exists mainly in people's heads. Cobwebs needing to be swept out of the corners of our minds.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,



There's this guy by the name of Michael Rivero of the "what really happened" website who has been saying for awhile now that the government is hoping for a violent revolution because that's the one they can win, but this coming revolution will not be fought with brawn, but with brains. I think we might could do that if we'd only put down our petty differences and put our heads together on it.


I wish I thought the same; but, I hear too many calling for violence and quick solutions to their limited side of the discussion over what is wrong in this country. That is how sheep re-act, they get violent.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


True. It seems though unless you are young enough that right and wrong is still mostly black and white and interpretation has not crept in, or had an exemplary stand up role model very close to home, apathy is forced effectively into most.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 



I wish I thought the same; but, I hear too many calling for violence and quick solutions to their limited side of the discussion over what is wrong in this country. That is how sheep re-act, they get violent.


A violent sheep? Rats in a corner might be a better analogy.


I hear the calls for a violent rebellion too and its easy to see how that could happen even though I think it would end badly for us. But I'm actually more concerned about a full blown war in which many of those our military have attacked without cause will pile on for payback right here in America. We've been far too complacent for far too long about the horrors we've allowed this government to rain down on innocents around the world.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,



A violent sheep? Rats in a corner might be a better analogy.


Not rats, sheep. People are basically adverse to conflict. People are basically happy being with their kind, eating, procreating and enjoying life. It is funny that people try and put a mean spin on being sheep, sheep are not evil animals, they are not predators. Sheep make lousy leaders, they never seek to advance or grow and are easily satisfied. When the grass gets thin, they get cranky and act irrationally. I think God was right, we are by and large sheep. In this world we choose to be led by predators or shepherds. The predators dress like sheep and try and lead the sheep towards rebellion so that they can have them to themselves, true slavery.

Military rebellions are not led by generals and they not led by soldiers, they are led by the officers. They are led by the people who live with the soldiers and report to the generals because they are the ones that the soldiers follow, the ones they trust, the sheepdogs. I apologize for waxing allegorically. There has never been and will never be a sheep revolution, it will always be the replacement of the greedy by those about to become greedy. That is history. The answer is that the amount of violence that we use to replace the old boss is equivalent to the amount of tyranny that we have to live with afterwards. It seems to be equivalent.

I agree with your analysis of what we are facing. It is garbage. I also agree that things will change. I do not agree that it will be for the better, it will be the cookie that individual interests want. It will give cookies to all and be more restrictive of those who will not take the cookie. I have three degrees, one in history, one in political science and one in law. I have worked in government for decades and know politicians. I have seen the big game and it is theater. I have even put on a play or two. What you are seeing going on is as much theater as any other show. This is not the average person, the people, standing up, this is the people being set up. You are being shown a show so that you will take a position, all positions that will be listened to have already been considered and it was determined how to manipulate the sheep. The Tea Party was the most amusing, they sought to work within their party and were immediately co-oped. Their number one guy got the lead in the Presidential primaries and was immediately destroyed. LOL. It is a game.

Oh, there is our great hope, Mr. Ron Paul, he would eliminate welfare and let 1/3rd of our nation live in absolute poverty if he could; but, he wouldn't be able to pass any law. He would have no support in congress. Both Democrats and Republicans would prevent him from passing any law so that we would know that we have to work within the two party system. There is no consensus of what is good and therefore we are easily separated. We stopped believing in good, we stopped believing in morality and only look out for ourselves, that comes with a price tag.

I deeply regret to say that the moment that the majority of Americans agreed with torture as a valid tool on the war on terror, the moment we rejected the Geneva Convention, the moment the majority rejected refusing to not do evil, we lost. You cannot demand to be treated morally while accepting that your enemies can be treated immorally, by your government. It is after all the same government.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


You say people are adverse to conflict and for most of us this is absolutely true although I don't think that makes us comparable to sheep or any other animal. We are what we are and there are a whole lot of grays in the midst of the black and white.

Meanwhile there are a few loud and obnoxious people who thrive on conflict and will do anything to create problems where none would exist if they only minded their own business. On the other hand, speaking of being adverse to conflict, that's the main reason the torturers get away with what they do, because its easier to turn a blind eye than to raise our voices. Or Cain. There's a fine line in there somewhere and so far we're not finding it very effectively. But I do like your analogy that humans seem totally incapable of detecting and selecting leaders who will be shepherds rather than predators. That's what I liked best about Celente's comments about leading ourselves.

We already know we cannot trust the leaders who are most often forced upon us, or at least we should know that they shouldn't be trusted by now. The big question is, do we trust ourselves and have we given anyone else any good reason to consider us trustworthy. If not, maybe we need to do some work on ourselves before we waste any more energy throwing big boulders around willy nilly.

We don't need a military rebellion. We need to lead ourselves out this jungle we've passively allowed to grow so huge to entangle OUR MINDS. That's the only way things will ever change for the better. Like I would change the line from the Lord's Prayer that goes, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Mine would read, "just everybody STOP the damn trespassing against others and STOP forgiving those who do." STOP supporting "The Show" and STOP participating with trespassers if you want them out of power, we give them that power.

I disagree with you on what Dr. Paul would do, or at least what he would try to do although I do agree that he would not be allowed to do much of what he would try to do. He has also said many times (paraphrasing) that without people doing for themselves what needs to be done, nothing will get done.

Its interesting that you put corrupt morals in context with a " price tag" because that's the bottom line. We've been dealing with corrupted money for thousands of years and the price tag for being content with that model of commerce is that it also corrupts morality until the money becomes what is worshipped and life itself holds no value.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by eazyriderl_l
reply to post by frazzle
 


True. It seems though unless you are young enough that right and wrong is still mostly black and white and interpretation has not crept in, or had an exemplary stand up role model very close to home, apathy is forced effectively into most.


Between eating and sleeping I missed this post. Sorry.

Even with an exemplary stand up role model at home, public schools spend eight hours a day drumming apathy into little information sponge heads. If you were government, would you then teach students how to control you? No, you'd teach them to stand in line, sit on command and raise their hands to speak.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Dear frazzle,



Its interesting that you put corrupt morals in context with a " price tag" because that's the bottom line. We've been dealing with corrupted money for thousands of years and the price tag for being content with that model of commerce is that it also corrupts morality until the money becomes what is worshipped and life itself holds no value.


I really appreciated reading what you wrote. It is fair to say that we can agree to disagree on some points. In the end it is all about morals. I believe we get the type of government we deserve. We voted our pocketbooks for so long that we got amoral leaders. I look at someone like Romney who says that his solution is to tax the wealthy less or someone like Obama who said he would take certain actions and once elected, he never did. Our political decisions are based on how something will effect us economically rather than if we are doing right. I sometimes feel that I don't know this country anymore. Peace.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join