THE THIRD WAY - COMMUNISM IN CORPORATE CLOTHING

(This is a continuation of the Code Tsunami theme from a previous post...and a reflection on Angelo Codevilla's Ruling Class thesis.)  
The problem is:  You can see it coming, but you can't stop it from happening.  A friend of mine recently told me it is time to hunker down and just figure out how to survive.  I'm beginning to view political abuse of power as a hurricane heading straight at us.  You watch in awe and fear, but you can't prevent it from its destructive purpose.  I know that sounds terribly hopeless, but while I am engaged in Tea Party attempts to stop the hurricane, and I am supporting candidates who express restoration of the Constitution, at this point, I don't see the hurricane breaking up and dissipating.  The hurricane has gained strength and has kicked up enough flying shrapnel in the form of regulations to take out all of the surrounding countryside, bigger than anything a few serious minded Constitutionalists can fight.

Dick Morris recently came out with a book titled, "Screwed."  In it he describes the dangers of Obama and the Senate passing treaties with the UN before the election in November.  One of these treaties is called, "LOST."  It has been tried before and put down.  Now John Kerry is resurrecting it for Senate approval.  You can find out why this is a bad idea here  and here.  Suffice it to say, this is just one example of what the globalists have planned to further destroy our sovereignty.  

While we are fighting off insane micro-managing regulations at the State or local levels, the nation is under attack at the global level.  Who is doing this?  Is it Republicans?  Democrats?   We're way beyond that now.  The answer is both, actually.  As libertarians in the U.S. grapple with the third party dilemma, which isn't successful enough to solve the problem, we are seeing the entire political system merge into something called, "The Third Way."  

"...in a 'Third Way' society, private property must be allowed. Rather than government owning all property and the means of production, as in pure socialism, an alternative is used. In a 'Third Way' society, property and business is heavily controlled by government regulation, rather than government ownership.

"However, in a 'Third Way' society, the laws to keep us citizens in line come from the communist model of government -- which means complete government control of everything from womb to tomb. We are to have a semblance of freedom. But the working class people must never have enough freedom (or accumulative power) to interfere effectively in either commerce or government. The moneyed elite, however, work under the capitalist system, and capitalist rules, so as to continue generating wealth. The elite get the freedom, the workers get strictly controlled."

The American public knows nothing about "The Third Way."  It isn't part of our common political vernacular, even though Bill Clinton and Tony Blair spoke about it at some length.  (They still do.) 

Reports Don Fiedor:

"Blair said that the world's center-left parties had to put themselves at the forefront of managing social change in the global economy.

"The old left [communists] resisted that change. The new right [conservative capitalists] did not want to manage it. We have to manage that change to produce social solidarity and prosperity."

So there you have it: managing social change in the global economy to produce social solidarity and prosperity. Blair's explanation is a short definition of a political plan that has been in the works for quite some time. It started with the Rhodes Scholars at Oxford University and is now taught in select American schools, such as the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The perpetrators support a blend of the best of communism and capitalism. The captains of big business and industry are to continue receiving every liberty, freedom and privilege they have come to expect. In return, they are expected to produce products, generate capital and support the governing elite.

Government's function will be to control the people, and insure a ready work force. That will be accomplished through a myriad of laws, rules and regulations controlling everything in the lives of the people."

Is it any wonder that Americans don't know where to look for Constitutional leadership?  Both the right and the left at the top of the political parties are well schooled in "The Third Way."  The policies of "The Third Way" provide them with bread and butter / campaign money.  Global corporations and global banks cannot afford to ignore politicians who regulate global policies.  (Here I want to add that Agenda 21 is a handbook for "The Third Way," as it creates global standards for every economic, cultural, and social aspect of life for every human on the planet by combining corporate and governmental policies. You can see a microcosmic version of this with the EU and the failure that has become.)  Further complicating this insanity is that neither base from the right or the left want anything to do with the policies of "The Third Way."  Communism in Corporate clothing is not satisfying to either side.  The Hegelian Dialectic = synthesis is "The Third Way" method taught in Oxford and Harvard and other ivy league halls of elitists, but the real world is not interested in compromising their souls for the sake of either Communists or Corporations.  Americans especially are not interested in this because the entire thing is treason against our Constitution. 

I think this is way beyond the grasp of concept of most the American public.  That is why I think the hurricane is coming no matter who is elected in November.  Americans, generally, see the errors, but don't realize how the game is rigged, nor do they know what they can do to stop it.  Me included. 

Yes, I'll vote for Romney, if he is the Republican nominee.  But Romney doesn't seem to be the anti-Third Way candidate, especially with the Wall St. and global corporate backing he is getting.  My Ron Paul friends will say that Paul is the anti-globalist candidate, and they may be right.  But Paul did not garner enough to get the nomination. Will Romney slow down the hurricane?  Doubtful.  Could anyone? 

CONSERVATIVE DEFENSE OF BUSINESS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS STATE CORPORATISM

The joke in my house when people are tongue tied or getting things mixed up is: "Someone is getting their merds wixed up!" (if you didn't catch that, flip the first letters of "words mixed" and you get it.)

In case you are looking for definitions to describe the current political soup we are in, good luck! We seem to be swirling around in a strange witch's brew of ingredients where socialism is mixed up with fascism, dictatorship, corporatism, communism, and with a small dash of capitalism thrown in just to placate the few Americans left in the nation. That's a lot of isms. We are trying so hard, as Americans, to define the political ideology of our future, while watching capitalism marginalized to near extinction. What do we call the new witch's brew?

We had capitalism in a form that satisfied the needs of most Americans for many years. Capitalism, combined with the rule of U.S. Constitutional law, was simple in design and created opportunity for all comers.

But Michael Moore says capitalism is dead. (I would say it lives on in the hearts of Americans, but Michael Moore doesn't listen to me.) What Michael Moore is really saying, I think, is that corporatism has taken over capitalism through political corruption. Large corporations are indeed now political organizations being played by governments and politicians on a global scale. This has happened to such an extent that corporatism has nearly killed capitalism. Of course Michael Moore never liked capitalism anyway, so he delights in the death of the most productive economic system in the history of the world.

But let's define our "merds." What is the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism?

Corporatism defined

corporatism (plural corporatisms)

1. Political / Economic system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, their associated lobbying efforts, etc.) working in concert or conflict with each other; usually with the goal of influencing or subsuming the direction of the state and generally only to benefit their own socioeconomic agendas at the expense of the will of the people, and to the detriment of the common good.
2. The influence of large business corporations in politics.

Capitalism defined

"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com

This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Source: Capitalism.org

Obama hates capitalism and proves by his policies that he will do anything he can to destroy it. Tea Partiers, conservatives, who love capitalism are defamed by the left as bitter clingers. Defenders of business enterprise, "the American Way," are told they are greedy sons of bitches and need to share the wealth. Obama is the champion of this defamation, all the while he is kissing up to the likes of Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE. Curious, no?

So what is going on here? Merds are getting wixed up. How so? Capitalists are being confused with corporatists. People on the street are being told that businessmen and women are greedy and are the abusers of workers. Business, the act of producing products and employing people, has come under the heading of criminal activity as defined by leftists.

At the same time, leftists are using corporations to implement their top down control of the American people. How? Through tax incentives, through regulations, through propaganda, through bribery of campaign money, through favortism, and any other way they can. You see, corporatism is not the same thing as capitalism.

The guy on the street is being told to despise "capitalism," business enterprise, as we all used to know it. Then the guy on the street sees the likes of Jeffrey Immelt and GE and says to himself, "Yeah, those nasty businessmen are greedy sons of bitches and should pay their fair share." And then, the guy on the street hears Tea Partiers and conservatives defending capitalism and says to himself, "Well, I don't like that idea because look at Jeffrey Immelt and GE." The guy on the street has his "merds wixed up," confused by contemporary definitions of "business enterprise." And who would not be confused? The witch's brew being cooked up is a mess.

The trouble with this is that GE is the poster child of "corporatism," not capitalism. The act of business in this country is now divided into two categories; big business corporatism, and entrepreneurship capitalism. It is the entrepreneur capitalist who is being smashed into oblivion, while the politically connected corporatist is sitting lofty in the favored highest halls of our government. Corporatists have sold out capitalism. There is good business and bad business and corporatism is bad business.

GE gets away with this by pretending to be on board with global environmentalist goals, i.e. wealth redistribution through environmental policies, windmills and squirrelly light bulbs, energy star appliances, etc. Warren Buffet gets away with his billions by telling Americans to pay more taxes. (spokesperson for the global leftist O in the WH.) Bill Gates gets away with it because he, too, plays the global leftists game of wealth redistribution, depopulation initiatives, foreign aid, and more. But those are only three of huge players who are playing the corporatist political game. Duke Energy, Home Depot, Ted Turner, Banks of all stripes, so many I could not begin to count.

And in case you don't know the corporatism game, here is a brief description:
Step 1. Spend money on politicians' campaigns and lobbyists.
Step 2. Ask for regulations and laws to benefit your corporation.
Step 3. Once favored status is achieved, make more money.
Step 4. Ask for tax loopholes and tax deductions, subsidies and grants.
Step 5. Politicians then tell you to trade the loopholes, subsidies and grants for your support of anti-capitalist orgs., such as NGO's, non-profits, leftists foundations, etc. (which you are all too happy to do because capitalism is not what you are doing anymore.)
Step 6. Throw parties and live it up! Dance on the grave of capitalism.

As 2012 elections draw near, Americans need to know the difference between capitalism and corporatism. Candidates who espouse support of business, need to define what that means to them. Are they supporting corporatism or capitalism? Romney? Perry? Bachmann? Whoever? Who is standing with the U.S. Constitutional support of capitalism? Who is in bed with corporations who want nothing but government favors in trade for squashing any business in their way, tax deductions, subsidies, grants, and loopholes? It's an important distinction.

For all of the leftist media consternation over Halliburton during the Bush / Cheney years, the Obama leftists have doubled down on the worst corporatism policies I have ever seen in my lifetime. Truthfully, our government has been corrupted by corporatism for a long time and is now into it up to its eyeballs. Republicans, as a whole, are not pristine in their conduct on this issue, either, to say the least. Conservative voters need to be discerning which candidates are actually still supporters of capitalism.

As supporters of business, let's not get our merds wixed up! We need capitalists, not state corporatists.