Red Ronnie, Zio-Bolshevik Infiltrator

Michael Kelley / Non-Aligned Media

Ronald Reagan is to this day held up as an icon by many people in conservative America, his policies are given as examples of what applied conservativism should look like, and his days as president are regarded with almost mystical reverence by those that love him. But Ronald Reagan was a Trojan Horse, a spellbinder, and inside his empty gut was a Zio-Bolshevik death squad waiting to burst out and wreak havoc on the unsuspecting Gentile nations. Few people understand that Barak Obama is not the first communist in the Oval Office, because Reagan inveigled the masses with his image as the ultimate anti-communist Cold Warrior. But  Reagan’s economic legacy of coddling the ultra-rich with tax giveaways and easy access to corporate offshoring, while undoubtedly popular with greedy elites in search of short term gains, decimated America’s strategic industrial base, necessary for victory in any war, and led to the rise of Red China as the leading manufacturer on earth and enabled its emergence as a modern military superpower. And Reagan’s diplomatic legacy was no less than enabling the Leninist long-range plan of feigned “weakness and evolution”, the so-called “end of the Cold War,”  to proceed with America’s help. And the third of Reagan’s legacies, perhaps the most disastrous of all, was the rise of the Jewish Zionist Neoconservatives to pre-eminence in the foreign policy making of the United States.

Reagan’s anticommunism just union-bashing, white supremacy and militarism

Looking for genuine anticommunist credentials for their beloved leader, Reagan devotees point to his use of executive action against the “socialist” trade unions (code for minority European ethnic types and blacks rising from the industrial slums); his attack on “welfare queens” (code for black mothers); his massive increase in defense spending in response to Russia’s big arms buildup (much of it debt financed pork-barrel political gifts to cronies, e.g. the “four-hundred dollar hammer”); and his sponsorship of guerilla wars in Central America against “Marxist-inspired rebels” (code for Indians and Mestizos seeking land autonomy from U.S. corporate agriculture). But ethnic nativism, union-bashing, white supremacy and militarism are all features of Russian communism just as well, and are not distinguishing features of the American system, which itself is based more on fairly regulated economic competition, equality before the law regardless of ethnicity, a sense of charity, class mobility based on merit, and a national defense predicated upon a well armed and organic state militia which can be assembled into a single fighting force in a time of war, but which remains dispersed during peacetime. So Reagan’s leadership style was more authoritarian and statist, but by shamelessly playing to nativism and making large of the menace of the Soviets, Reagan was able to act more like a Leninist than any previous president had.  Yet all this had the effect of justifying more of the same sort of military escalation in Soviet Russia and China, who could demonstrate to their own populations the mean and menacing face of the Capitalist West in the American president.

Reaganomics: hocking our future to usury for a war we then couldn’t win

Some of the conservatives in my country like to look back on “supply side economics” the way a junkie might remember his first line of coke: he never felt so good, and he fell in love with that feeling.  But then he spent the rest of his substance trying to get that feeling back, never quite could and ended up broke and in a wreck.  Which is ironic because one of the “trickle down” effects of the dirty wars in Latin America during this period was the beginning of the cocaine epidemic in America.  It was also the beginning of the credit card epidemic which cost many people their homes, businesses and marriages in due time.  But that is not all America lost in the eighties, most importantly of all we lost our manufacturing base to China and other countries overseas which, as we saw previously, was known by the Soviet military planners at least to be a losing strategy.  The Soviet Union was a garrison state, which means that it relied very little on the outside world for the strategic necessities of national survival during any foreseeable conflict.  This is also called autarky.  While it may not be any way to thrive, it is the only way known to weather a protracted global nuclear scale conflict, the kind which we were borrowing all that money to get ready to fight.

Had Japan and China not financed Reaganomics, i.e. the U.S. debt, the economy, i.e. capitalism, would have collapsed before the collapse of Communism.

Reaganomics stands for limited government spending, deregulation of economy and reduced tax. Tea party activities and people like Ron Paul have similar ideas. These ideas are nothing but bogus economics (please see charts and tables below). For the economic boom during 1990s and 2000s (until 2008 economic downturn), conservatives are giving credit to Reaganomics. The truth is that due to the Reaganomics the country started to accumulate debt, which was first financed by Japan and then China (Please see the data in charts and tables). Now the debt has become unsustainable and an equivalent to terminal cancer.

As shown in Figure 1, federal debt was negligible before President Reagan took the oath of Office. Because of tax-cuts to rich, the debt started building up. As debt is not a good thing for a household or a business, Bush Sr. raised the taxes despite saying, “Read my lips, No new taxes,” because any reasonable person would have taken that step. President Clinton balanced the budget and even had budget surplus during his last two years of presidency. But Bush Jr. increased debt drastically, first due to tax-cuts to rich and unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug plan, and then because of two wars, one of which was unnecessary (the Iraq War). [1]

So that is the Reagan economic legacy: we have no alternative but to use our military might  now  because we borrowed against or pawned everything worth fighting for arming up.  But now we haven’t got adequate provisions for national economic survival during a WW 3 scenario where we can’t order ball bearings from India, tires from Malaysia, or steel from China with our worthless credit-debt; thus we will lose if it takes us any longer than the average cocaine high lasts to win.  And in the process we supplied our likely enemies in this war, the BRICS, with all the manufacturing power and economic leverage they need to win.  Plus our population is utterly unprepared, materially or psychologically, to stand up under a massive nuclear assault with minimal casualties and maintain the will to fight.  But on the bright side, that money was borrowed against the present and future wealth of the average working poor American, into perpetuity because of interest on usury, and not from taxing the already incredibly wealthy when they could have easily afforded it.  So at least we aren’t “socialists”, like the generation that fought WW2.  Whoops, looks like we got a little excited and blew our expensive, secret, high-tech, military load all over some mud huts in the “sand box”, and now we are feeling a little tired just as the “former” and “reformed” communists are making their move.

‘But we won the Cold War’ – No: that was just an act and Reagan was just an actor

In the made-for-television version of the events surrounding the Reagan and Gorbachev era, the tough-as-nails anticommunist Reagan used the dynamic engine of Capitalism to out spend and outperform the backward Communists in a legendary arms race to Mutual Assured Destruction.  And when all was said and done, neither side could fight the war to end all wars without destroying itself in the process, but the West was rich and financially together, while the East was in such a shambles they couldn’t even afford to pay their Army enough to live on, and Gorbachev had to bow his blotchy head in humiliating defeat and extend the olive branch of peace.  Capitalism had won, Communism was discredited and abandoned, and the world breathed a sigh of relief.  Except for the enemies of the State of Israel, but we will get to that part soon enough.

What happened in reality, was that the Russian communists were just doing again what they had done before with the New Economic Policy under Lenin. They called it, in their own strategic documents, the “weakness and evolution” deception. Realizing just how technologically dysfunctional their blood and vodka soaked synthetic planned economy was turning out to be, they decided to temporarily feign a departure from their ideological hardline, and make all kinds of noise about how they now see the errors in their thinking, and they just need some help from all the nice people to get back to normal and start living a decent life again. Of course history proved that this was a cynical and psychopathic criminal plan to steal everything they were too dumb or incompetent to make for themselves from the bourgeois nations. And as soon as Lenin had managed to coax investors into building him factories for his tanks and armaments, electrical power for his war industries, modern agriculture for his collective farms, and in short everything needed to survive at the modern level of existence within a garrison state, he immediately did an about face and ruthlessly prosecuted a hardline ideological war against the people who had put up all the goods and knowhow for his state.

What Gorbachev was doing was no different than what Lenin did with the NEP. After all Communism is a secular religion which to its believers is as eternal and unchanging as the Gospel. Only its aim is the materialist Utopia on Earth, not some vague metaphorical spiritual Kingdom.  So naturally, anyone who was a real anticommunist would have quickly recognized the nature of Gorbachev’s overtures of peace, and taken prudent measures against being taken for a ride a second time.  Only Red Ronnie and his advisors played right along with Gorbachev in this deception, convincing the American people that it was safe to come out now and the war was over. Reagan invited Gorbachev to set up shop in Monterey, California where he has an office to this day on a sensitive military installation, the Presidio, near the Army’s Defense Language Institute.  It seems that only Gorbachev has been candid about what was really going on, and why not? There is little risk now of the truth coming out.  Communist demoralization renders the victim unable to see the facts right before his own eyes, sort of like Christian Zionism does, but we will get there soon enough.

Gorbachev, the eventual face of these policies, later acknowledged their true nature: “The decision to launch a new economic policy, which substantially widened the notions of socialism and the ways of building it, was imbued with profound revolutionary dialectics.”  Translation: world conquest will proceed as planned. The “revolutionary dialectic” is a tactic that has been employed throughout Soviet history.  The word “glasnost” appears in Lenin’s writings 46 times.

In his book, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, Gorbachev said outright, “Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system.” Answering those asking, “Are we giving up socialism?” Gorbachev replied, “Every part of our program of perestroika…is fully based on the principles of more socialism….”  Gorbachev has even been as blunt as calling perestroika a “continuation of the October Revolution.”  [2]


Buried deep within an article by Agence France-Presse about former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev standing up for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is an absolutely astounding admission: Former top diplomats for the Soviet Union told the French news agency that “the reunification of Germany was allowed on the condition that the USSR would participate in the new European order.”

The revelation is especially explosive considering Gorbachev’s past celebrations of what he publicly called the “new European soviet” — also known as the European Union — as well as the fact that the EU’s leadership is literally packed with “former” communists, many of them from the former Soviet Union. [3]

Neo-Conned: Reagan invited alien Zionist Trotskyites in to run our foreign policy

The presidential administration of Red Ronnie was the first one to place Neoconservatives in positions of power within the policy making establishment. This was literally the beginning of the end for American diplomacy, as the right wing Zionist Bolshevism of the Jewish-led movement became the ascendant force in the foreign policy establishment starting at this time and continuing on to the present day. In America the Neocons tell us that it is necessary for us to go out and make the military blunders that strengthen both Israel’s and Russia’s positions in the world, and in Russia they call those mistakes what they are and hate the American Republic for them, while being sure to loudly  repeat the mantra that “it’s the Neocons” who are to blame for all America’s belligerence (true) so that nobody will catch on too soon that they are secretly in an alliance to take the castle from the inside.

Neoconservatism is a political ideology with origins in the MarxistTrotskyite movement that has played a critical role in formulating American foreign policy, especially since the 9/11 attacks. As for its preferred form of authoritarianism, the ideology represents the embrace of Zionism and is totally focused upon the racial supremacy and group interests of Jews and the Israeli state. Neoconservatism can be seen as a strategy replacing the previous Jewish objective of Marxist world revolution…

During the 1970s Jeane Kirkpatrick, a political scientist increasingly criticized the Democratic Party, of which she was still a member since the nomination of the antiwar Senator George McGovern. Kirkpatrick became a convert to the ideas of the new conservatism of once liberal Democratic academics. During Ronald Reagan’s successful 1980 campaign, he hired her as his foreign policy adviser and later nominated her US ambassador to the United Nations, a position she held for four years. Known for her anti-communist stance and for her tolerance of right-wing dictatorships, she argued that Third World social revolutions favoring the poor, dispossessed, or underclasses are illegitimate, and thus argued that the overthrow of leftist governments (such as the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile) and the installation of right-wing dictatorships was acceptable and essential. Under this doctrine, the Reagan administration actively supported the dictatorships of Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos and the White government in South Africa.  [4]

Ronald Reagan courted the neoconservatives during the 1980 presidential campaign and subsequently recruited many of them into his administration. Kirkpatrick was appointed ambassador to the United Nations, Novak served as lower level diplomat there, and Gershman headed the newly created National Endowment for Democracy. Second-generation neocons from the political rather than the intellectual world held important midlevel positions. Richard Perle, a former aide to Henry Jackson, became assistant secretary of defense. Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, Podhoretz’s son-in-law, helped to formulate policy toward Central America and played a major role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Other neocons served on government advisory boards dealing with education and foreign policy…

The neoconservatives were disproportionately Jewish, accepted much of the welfare state, and enthusiastically endorsed efforts to defeat international communism. The paleocons were devoutly Christians, opposed activist government in principle, and expressed reservations about both internationalist foreign policy and the cultural impact of capitalism. Tensions became apparent in 1981 when Reagan chose neocon William Bennett instead of a traditionalist to chair the National Endowment for the Humanities.

By 1986, traditionalists were accusing neoconservatives of excessive devotion to Israel. Neocons countered with some warrant that paleoconservatives harbored anti-Semites in their ranks. [5]







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>