- Pacific
RONALD REAGAN: ILLUMINATI TOOL
The Reagan
myth is still useful to the Illuminati
in duping and misdirecting people who hold traditional values.
The past few days have
seen a burst of contrived media celebration of Ronald Reagan. The excuse has been the
100th anniversary of his birth.
The real reason is that Reagan -- the Reagan myth -- is still useful to the Illuminati in
duping and misdirecting people who hold traditional values.
In truth, Reagan was an enemy of these values. He was a highly paid puppet of the
Illuminati who let himself be used by those who want to destroy everything he pretended to
stand for.
I have to admit he had me fooled too. Back in 1980, people wanted to be rid of the
feckless Jimmy Carter. Reagan seemed
strong and sincere, upbeat and conservative. To me, he seemed like a man you could trust.
A big mistake. Unfortunately, he's still got most people fooled. So let's review the
career of Ronald Reagan, and see who the real man was.
THE REAL REAGAN
First, Reagan was a left-wing Democrat who admired Franklin Roosevelt, the president who revolutionized America
by turning the Republic into an Empire. (See Burden of Empire by Garet Garrett.) Even to the end of his
career, Reagan was praising Roosevelt.
Later, about the time he divorced his first wife (Jane Wyman) and met Nancy Davis (the
daughter of one of Eleanor Roosevelt's intimates), he underwent a "conversion"
to "anti-communism." This was the foundation of his reputation as a
conservative.
No surprise here, though. In the late 1940s, lots of left-wing liberals were turning
against the Communists -- many to save their own skins from the revelations of treason
that were coming out.
Even when this was not the motive, their "anti-Communism" often meant no more
than anti-Stalinism. Trotskyites -- who thought of themselves as true Communists -- hated
Stalin's guts and hated the Soviet Union.
Later, many of them became the so-called "neo-conservatives" who took over
Buckley's National Review, and
then, with the election of Reagan, the Republican
Party.
But what about Reagan's opposition to the "evil empire"?
What about his big defense build-up that forced the Soviet Union into insolvency? What
about his partnership with John-Paul II to free Poland and Eastern Europe?
All this was just part of the Illuminati plan to take the dialectic (capitalist West vs.
communist East) to the next level. Gorbachev
and Reagan were the appointed leaders to bring about the end of the bipolar world, so that
the age of globalization could emerge.
In fact, at their summit at Reykjavik in 1986, Reagan proposed to Gorbachev that America
be radically disarmed. Even liberals were stunned by the scope of Reagan's offer.
But behind the scenes, the American military rebelled, and the accounts of the summit were
sanitized and forgotten. The following year Reagan gave his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down
this wall" performance and when the wall did come down, Reagan became "the man
who defeated Communism."
ILLUMINATI GO'FER
Reagan's "patriotism" suffered other lapses as well. In 1986 he signed off on
amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. You would think as a man of common sense and
alleged economic literacy, Reagan would have known that when you reward something, you get
more of it. Was the Gipper out to lunch?
And then there was "Iran-Contra." Reagan was fearlessly fighting the Commies in Central America, but didn't
know that Ollie North was selling arms to Iran
to finance this holy war. Out to lunch again?
It was at this point that I ceased to be a "conservative." All the conservatives
I knew seemed to be gaga over North. Where I come from, his actions are known as
treason.
(An aside: Fawn Hall, North's personal secretary -- a sensitive position that is carefully
vetted -- was the daughter of Henry
Kissinger's personal secretary. And Reagan had put Kissinger in charge of Central American policy.)
CHAMPION OF SMALL GOVERNMENT
But what about other Reagan policies? Didn't he reduce taxes? Didn' t he reduce the size
of government to "get it off our backs," as he pledged?
Reagan's career was the triumph of rhetoric over reality. When he ran for President, he
promised to put an end to the Departments of Education and Energy. Instead, he
strengthened and entrenched them. (He also added a new bureaucracy, the Department of
Veterans Affairs.)
As for taxes, he cut them in 1981 -- one of his signature accomplishments. But the same
year he increased Social Security
taxes (excuse me, I mean "insurance premiums"), and in the following years he
found other ways to raise taxes without seeming to do so. At the end of his two terms most
Americans were paying more in taxes than ever.
After eight years of Reagan the government was larger than ever. The budget was more
than 50 percent higher than it was under Carter. And the budget deficit had tripled.
This was due above all to the huge increase in military spending. The military-industrial
complex (that Eisenhower had warned against) thrived as it hadn't since the days of World War II.
CHAMPION OF CHRISTIAN VALUES
Wasn't Reagan pro-life? A Christian? A family man? Once again, when it came to
things like abortion, Reagan talked a great game. But his Supreme Court Justices gave us Roe v. Wade).
His first appointment was an unqualified woman (O'Connor) with little judicial experience
and no discernible judicial philosophy.
She was selected for the same reason that Sotomayor
and Kagan were: she was a female.
And she was no conservative.
In all, Reagan appointed three justices. Later, two of them (predictably including
O'Connor) voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. (Casey was a critical case: a change in
just one of those two votes would have undermined Roe.)
And then there was the Bork nomination. Robert Bork was the most
qualified nominee in a generation. But when Teddy
Kennedy launched his breathtakingly vitriolic attack on Bork, what did Reagan do?
Nothing. He remained silent. The man who extolled the presidency as a great "bully
pulpit" -- who might have saved his own nominee if he had just fought for him --
instead let him hang out to dry.
So there we have Reagan -- the man who as Governor
of California signed the first no-fault divorce bill into law; the man whose
official schedule was set by his wife according to astrological conjunctions; the man
whose whole political career was subsidized by global corporations (GE, Bechtel, etc.) --
the man who spent his whole life play-acting a script written by others.
Was he evil? Did he know what he was doing? Or was he truly out to lunch? The latter might
explain Reagan's uncanny ability to seem anti-government even as he enlarged the
government's role.
CONCLUSION
What was Reagan's overriding role? And why does it matter now? Picture two men, one
at each end of a cross-cut saw. They're cutting down a tree.
To the casual observer it looks at first as if the two are working against each other: as
one moves forward, the other goes back, and vice versa. But of course they're working
together to achieve a common goal.
In the same way, "liberals" and "conservatives," Republicans and
Democrats, seem to be working against each other. But they're really working together.
One part will move the country to the left, when the times permit (e.g., because of
depression or war). Then, when people become alarmed and resist the move, the other
("opposition") party will come in.
But instead of restoring the balance, they will merely stop (or slow) the leftward
movement. They will consolidate it, until it's time for the next move left.
In this way the center of gravity moves ever leftward. And what was unthinkable a
generation ago becomes mainstream today.
To enact this little dialectic you need some good (or passable) actors, such as Ronald
Reagan. That way you control the opposition. You get people who have traditional values to
vote for their own destruction. (2.06.2011, Rollin Stearns, for henrymakow.com)
"To Achieve World
Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism,
their loyalty to family traditions and national identification" Brock Chisholm - Director of the World Health Organization
"A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to
believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a
reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police
State Dictatorship it's going to
get." Ian Williams Goddard
The fact is that "political correctness" is all about creating uniformity. Individualism is one of the biggest obstacles in the way of the New World Order. They want a public that is predictable and conditioned to do as it's told without asking questions.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." Thomas Jefferson