Here is an article that makes clearer what Clinton and the Bilderbergers are trying to achieve. Notice that Gorbi is fully behind it.

======================================================================

Third Way or Third Reich? Richard Poe May 18, 1999

What is the Third Way, and why is Bill Clinton pushing it? During the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Mikhail Gorbachev promoted the so-called "Third Way" as an alternative to free markets. This new way of governing would be neither capitalist nor communist, but something in between. The Third Way flopped in Russia. But Bill Clinton thinks it will work here.

On November 14, 1998, while most of us were distracted by sex scandals, the New York Times quietly reported that, in response to the growing worldwide recession, "Mr. Clinton has proposed a `third way' between capitalism and socialism."

Actually, Clinton has been touting the Third Way since 1992. But his evasive language prevented most people from figuring out what he meant by it.

"We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer," Clinton said in his 1998 State of the Union address. "My fellow Americans, we have found a third way."

Of course, most Americans didn't even know we were looking for one. But now that we've found it, how does it work?

Among other things, the Third Way calls for business and government to join hands as "partners.

"We are working with business to use technology, research and market incentives to meet national goals," Clinton told the Economic Club of Detroit in February. "Some have called this political philosophy the third way."

What Clinton means by this gobbledygook is that Big Business will own the economy (as under capitalism), while Big Government runs it (as under socialism).

Corporations will be bribed into obedience through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation and other special privileges.

It all sounds very cozy. But what would life be like under such a regime? History offers some alarming clues.

"National Socialist Germany has created a new economic doctrine," boasted Adolf Hitler in 1939, "which views ... the economy as the servant of the people." Hitler exemplified the Third Way. He left industry in private hands, but appointed government bureaucrats to run it.

Production goals were set and price controls imposed from Berlin. Jobs were created through public works, tax incentives and government credits.

"Hitler ... anticipated modern economic policy," enthused liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1973. "That a nation oppressed by economic fear would respond to Hitler as Americans did to FDR is not surprising."

Nor should it surprise us that some might look back with nostalgia on Hitler's strong-arm tactics, now that global depression lurks around the corner. Is the Third Way a coded expression for fascism? Perhaps.

This new ideology does not come with jackboots, goose-stepping thugs or delirious crowds shouting, "Sieg Heil!" But maybe it doesn't have to. Back in 1980, a leftwing political scientist and urban studies professor named Bertram Gross, in his book Friendly Fascism, foretold a kinder, gentler brand of tyranny.

"Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of this creeping fascism..." he wrote. "In America, it would be supermodern and multiethnic -- as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile."

Most people would accept the new order without distress, Gross predicted. They would have fewer rights, of course, but more gadgets, perks and entertainments. Troublemakers would be blacklisted and discredited, but rarely jailed or killed. When violence became necessary, it would be done discreetly.

"One can look forward to improved capabilities ... for the use of ... induced heart failure ... induced suicide ... and `accidental' automobile fatalities," wrote Gross.

The author of Friendly Fascism was no wild-eyed Cassandra. He was a leading architect of liberal social policy under presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Carter. As such, Gross unwittingly helped build the partnership of Big Government and Big Business that he later decried. He recognized his guilt only late in life.

While writing his book, Gross dreamed that he was searching through a huge, empty house for "friendly fascists." He found one at last.

"I flung open one of the doors," Gross writes. "And there sitting at a typewriter and smiling back at me, I saw myself."

Over the years, Gross had helped draft such Big Government legislation as the full-employment bills of 1944 and 1945, and the Employment Act of 1946.

"I sought solutions for America's ills ... through more power in the hands of central government," Gross admits. "In this I was not alone. Almost all my fellow planners, reformers, social scientists, and urbanists presumed the benevolence of more concentrated government power."

But they were wrong. Gross realized that centralized power was, in fact, the linchpin of tyranny. "Big Business-Big Government partnerships ...," he wrote, "were the central facts behind the power structures of old fascism in the days of Mussolini, Hitler and the Japanese empire builders. ... I see Big Business and Big Government as a joint danger."

If only the Clinton cheerleaders were capable of such introspection. Gross died in 1997. But his spirit lives on, a fading spark of leftwing conscience, unsung and unheeded in the mad rush to the Third Way.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Poe is a freelance journalist, a New York Times-bestselling author and a staunch libertarian. His latest book is Black Spark, White Fire (Prima, 1998).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), May 31, 1999

Answers

Welcome to the future.

Weep for America.

Then do about it.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), May 31, 1999.

It is OK.

BJ Clinton feels our pain!

The DOW is above 10,000!

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 31, 1999.

Seems to me that America, in my lifetime, has been operating this way.

"Corporations will be bribed into obedience through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation and other special privileges." "...the Third Way calls for business and government to join hands as 'partners'."

So what else is new? Looks to me like just another attempt to discredit President Clinton.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 31, 1999.

Bingo.....the Prez don't need any help being discredited. He's a master at it all by his little ol'self. Maybe you've been on vacation since 1992...in a rain forest....deep in the heart of the Amazon...dropping monkeys out of trees with blow-darts. Stick around, we'll clue you in!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), May 31, 1999.

Will continue,

You are eerily accurate in your guess as to where I've been these past few years. Or was it just a guess?

Please enlighten me as to why you may or may not believe this "Third Way" concept attributed to the President is not, & has not been, business as usual for decades?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 31, 1999.

"We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer," Clinton said in his 1998 State of the Union address. "My fellow Americans, we have found a third way."

The logical fallacies in this are stunning.

1) What debate was that?

2) If such a debate occurred, and I'm not aware that it had, in what way has it been sterile?

3) Why is the "debate" framed in such extreme terms. Are such exclusively extreme positions are the only viable positions?

4) The proposed "third way" is neither a logical resolution nor a logical synthesis of these the two rhetorical extremes presented.

5) How does mating intrusive, monolithic government with intrusive, monolithic business satisfy those among the rhetoric that "government is the enemy". The "third way" proposal merely further supports and enhances the rhetoric that "government is the answer".

A first year debate student could come up with better, less transparent mush that this. He's arguing from a fictitious premise and then offering an irrational solution based on that fictitious premise. Who writes this crap?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 31, 1999.

The so called third way is, as Bingo1 indicates, at least decades old. It has variations, and goes by different names in different places and/or at different times.

One of many excellent studies on the subject is F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944).

The degrees and forms of governmental interference with the economy varies as political trends shift, but under one name or another, the so called third way has been the predominant mode of governance in the USA at least since the New Deal, which managed to prolong the depression for more than a decade. At other times, the economy has done quite well in spite of governmental interference.

Clinton is simply the current poster boy in the USA of this mode of governance. He may remind one of Hayek's chapter titled "Why the Worst Get on Top".

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), May 31, 1999.

Nathan,

I'm sure all the congress was sitting there asking the very same questions you raised.

Whatever happened to a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

I've been hearing that the globalists want to join the Euro with the dollar. These people plow ahead as if y2k is a nonevent.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), May 31, 1999.

BB: "Whatever happened to a government of the people, by the people and for the people?"

It's a nice line, but would be more accurate if amended to 'government over the people, by a select group of people and in the best interest of a few of the people'. This covers America from 1781 or so to the present.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 31, 1999.

Bingo1

To say that the government of our country in 1781 is similar to today's is unfair and untrue. There was no central bank in the U.S. until Wilson caved in. There was always a strong sense of nationalism in America until this century.

While the masons and secret societies were in existence there was nothing like the global elite that exists today. National sovereignty was never in doubt until the League of Nations. At least in 1781 we only had to worry about the U.S. gov 'over' the people....now it is a global government ruling over the American people.

It is true that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-- BB (peace2u@b3lllantic.net), May 31, 1999.

Sorry Bingo,I didn't mean to create a misunderstanding. My comments weren't meant to create an economical or historical analysis. I was strictly coming from the point of view that my country is being led by a pathological liar who is a two-timing womanizer that commits rape, covers up illegal activities, appoints gangsters, sells his country to the highest bidder, loaths those who protect it, spits on our justice system, threatens people, destroys lives, abuses cigars.....................zzzzzzz..uh, oh yea, were was I? Could he be a Nazi? Nah. How about a Communist? No waaayy. He's just plain old evil. After all, there's NO law against THAT. Besides, I just know he's going to take charge and lead his country in this crisis, any day now...zzzzzzz..uhhh....don't you think so?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 01, 1999.