Direct Link to Latest News



February 6, 2011

The Reagan myth is still useful to the Illuminati in duping and misdirecting people who hold traditional values.

by Rollin Stearns

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.
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."

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.
fawnhall.jpg(An aside: Fawn Hall,left, 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.)
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.
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.
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.


Rollin Stearns is a former book editor who lives in Maine.

Further reading:
Here's the Rest of Him (1968) and The Counterfeit Candidate (1976), both by Kent Steffgen.

Related- The Corruption of Ronald Reagan  by Dan Moldea



Scruples - the game of moral dillemas


Tony B said (February 8, 2011):

I'm surprised that neither book editor Stearns nor any responders seem aware that Reagan - waaaaaaay back in his early acting days - was a charter member of the United World Federalists. That "leopard" never changed his spots.

Jane said (February 7, 2011):

Henry, My grandfather gave me a Goldwater pin to wear to school in 1964. It was a gold nugget looking U.S. map with Goldwater 64 on it, and how proudly it was worn to school every day. A little girl who wore a LBJ button every day and I were chosen to debate the candidates in our 2nd grade classroom. She loudly stated that Goldwater would get us in a war!!! I was shocked and didn't know how to respond to such an accusation. Our classroom voted and Goldwater won by a landslide as the children were all voting as their parents were. My Grandfather was a strong supporter of Reagan and sent him campaign contributions when he ran for Governor of California even though my Grandaddy was a Tennessean. Grandaddy didn't live to see Reagan elected President though. I love Reagan deeply and do hope he was duped and not actively engaged in betraying us . My hope is in the Lord and not politicians!

Tony said (February 7, 2011):

Rollin Stearns does a pretty good job of detailing how the NWO moved forward during Reagan's time in office and especially like the tree sawing example for helping people to understand the hegelian dialectic. But from what I have seen and read about Reagan, it does sound like he may have been a simple yet devout Christian who had circles run around him by the the true tools like Kissinger and neocons like Perle and Wolfowitz. It is an important difference whether Reagan was a willing servant or just a useful idiot, because it points out the danger of trying to make changes when you don't know your enemy.....a warning by Jesus is "to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves" ...neither of which describes Reagan.

Ed said (February 7, 2011):

My biggest disappointment with Ronald Reagan came when he didn't veto the asset forfeiture law, which allows the government to confiscate your money and property if they suspect you of a crime, with no proof of guilt being required. Ayn Rand said that there are no rights without property rights, and asset forfeiture is a vicious attack on those rights. All the predictions made by those opposed to it at that time have come true---and the "drug kingpins" supposedly targeted by this law are about the only class of people who have not suffered from it.

All in all, Ronald Reagan was a big fake, just as Rollin Stearns said. It's too bad that the only alternatives allowed in the rigged system were Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.

Steven said (February 7, 2011):

I supported Reagan during his first term but have since learned the truth about him. However I still believe he wanted to do what was right in some ways. Why else would daddy Bush, ex head of the CIA, "allegedly" send him such a stern warning to get in line, via an assassin's bullet? It was Bush that ran this presidency, not Reagan.

Kelley said (February 7, 2011):

hank you for this article by Rollin Stearns... I have always been amazed at the number of people who praise Reagan as having been THE president of this last century... next, of course, to Roosevelt. Totally bonkers!

My step father who was a courageous landing craft pilot in the south pacific (wwII) had so little to hang on to that he would get livid when I talked of the freakin' bankers and their part in creating war... and how Vietnam was no more or less wrong or right than WWII.

The whole time in and before 'Nam I knew it was wrong and that millions of Vietnamese and probably more like two hundred thousand (plus) Americans died or are dying for bankers.

And now of course we have the bankers bailing each other out because they are too big to fail? I am looking into a completely different kind of future... not a wild wild west... buit something probably closer than what we can now imagine.
Why?, because the too big to fail have only set themselves up to fall further... and those who believe they must have the banks and their money will surely fall with them.... much worst than 1929.... because this one will be for real... for those who created it.

In Truth, Simplicity and Love,
Kelley 'Nam 70-71

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at