Close this search box.

Proof of an old conspiracy in motion? — Opposing views!

Jose: Friends, another article to connect the dots, “Soros’s Campaign of Global Chaos,” from Realclearpolitics by Caroline Glick, August 26, 2016:

Major media outlets in the US have ignored the leak of thousands of emails from billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation by the activist hacker group DCLeaks. The OSF is the vehicle through which Soros has funneled billions of dollars over the past two decades to non-profit organizations in the US and throughout the world. According to the documents, Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor. So it is likely the case that the media’s support for Clinton has played some role in the mainstream media’s bid to bury the story.

It is also likely however, that at least some news editors failed to understand why the leaked documents were worth covering. Most of the information was already public knowledge. Soros’s massive funding of far-left groups in the US and throughout the world has been documented for more than a decade…


Billionaire George Soros in a portrait for the film “Soros.” Photo credit: Vital Pictures

MAF: I would certainly welcome an investigative journalism piece on George Soros for from either one of you, friends. Soros is a far-left hypocrite, farther to the left, I think, than the players of the NWO. If you have not read Death of a Dissident: The Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the Return of the KGB by Alex Goldfarb with Marina Litvinenko [2007], you should read it. It has a bit of information on Soros and how he tried to push Russia to the left, back toward communism after the collapse of the USSR. The book also explains how and why Boris Yeltsin picked Vladimir Putin and placed him in charge of Russia. Here is my blurb for the book from the Great Books section at

“Death of a Dissident: The Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the Return of the KGB by Alex Goldfarb with Marina Litvinenko. 2007. The assassination of former Russian intelligence officer Alexander ‘Sasha’ Litvinenko in November 2006 — poisoned by the rare radioactive element polonium — caused an international sensation. Within a few short weeks, the fit 43-year-old lay gaunt, bald, and dying in a hospital, the victim of a ‘tiny nuclear bomb.’ Suspicions swirled around Russia’s FSB, the successor to the KGB, and the Putin regime. Traces of polonium radiation were found in Germany and on certain airplanes, suggesting a travel route from Russia for the carriers of the fatal poison. But what really happened? What did Litvinenko know? And why was he killed?…. His closest friend, Alex Goldfarb, and his widow, Marina, are the only two people who can tell it all, from firsthand knowledge, with dramatic scenes from Moscow to London to Washington. Death of a Dissident reads like a political thriller, yet its story is more fantastic and frightening than any novel.”


Rolando: I have not seen this material on Soros. Certainly many of the statements are true and much of it can and has been verified. The Benghazi tapes I sent verify much of the treason, but the treason goes back to the establishment of the Soviet government in 1917. Every administration, including Reagan’s, committed high treason by supplying the communist states with massive low-interest loans that were mostly never paid back or were paid with taxpayer money. The floodgates of American and Western technology, food, military equipment and other essentials were opened wide by all administrations and this strategic material poured into the Soviet and Chinese communist states, thus allowing them to expand and conduct violent revolutions in many nations and infiltrate our government. Certainly Hillary and Obama committed multiple acts of treason and continue to do so. We know that Hillary kept the FBI out of Vince Foster’s personal safe after his murder and she extracted top secret NSA files from that safe which have never been recovered. Despite this clear-cut violation of federal law nothing was ever done. As for Soros, there is considerable evidence that he is also playing major roles in conducting our foreign policy.

If one connects the dots by resourcing a number of seemingly unrelated books and material, one will begin to see the interlinking pattern. The Soviets and Hitler worked together early in the war. The Soviets, along with Bormann’s help, infiltrated the Nazi leadership and sabotaged Hitler causing him to lose the war (along with many other factors). Towards the end of the war, the German leadership began to defect to surrounding nations, especially the Middle East. There they took on Arabic names and married Middle Eastern women. They established the National Socialist model in the Middle East by their interlocking with the Muslim Brotherhood. But keep in mind that these defectors were all people working with the Soviets. The Soviets, as I have said in other emails, admired the National Socialist model — mainly because of its fascist ability to fund its expansion and operations. A careful analysis will show that by the 1960s Soviet infiltration of American society at every level had been complete. It is instructive to note that Claire Lopez said that at the end of WWII the Muslim Brotherhood had begun its infiltration of the US government at all levels — this would parallel that of the Soviets. It would be highly unlikely that they both would have their operatives entrenched in high places yet be carrying out opposing policies. This means that the Muslim Brotherhood is the same individuals as the Soviets — or at least their minions. They are certainly carrying out the same policies. At the time the Muslim Brotherhood was deeply engrained in our government and society, the traitors working in high positions in the State Department especially, such as Alger Hiss, Averell Harriman and Dean Rusk were helping cover the operations of the Muslim Brotherhood within our government. If they were competing for power, why would they cover for them?

The level of treason committed by all of these administrations is documented and extensive and this involves every president since Woodrow Wilson. Critical to this conspiracy are the multinationals and the international bankers (and tax-exempt Foundations) as they are the ones that will reap massive profits and expand their markets. They act as the funders of this world revolution and are assured high places in the coming world government. Only the major players will survive the creation — that is the painful birth — of the New World Order (NWO). As Claire Lopez says in the plan for world domination we are at the next to last stage — which is major confrontation. Most nations in the world know that the United States meddles in the affairs of their country. The recent revelation that the NSA was spying on leaders in Germany and other Western partners was instructive and a wakeup call for those slow to appreciate the level of intrusion. It is also instructive that according to Claire Lopez and others, that one of the key programs was the unseating of present leaders in the Middle Eastern nations and replacing them with revolutionaries. This has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, and other such nations. The terrorist element could not have accomplished any of these revolutions without the help of Obama and Hillary Clinton and the Bushes. The fact that Al-Qaeda was receiving massive shipment of weapons from this administration, including shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles, demonstrates the traitorous nature of this administration. It is almost as if the military and those involved do not see that this is the very same terrorist group that murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Further the fact that they trained and supplied ISIS demonstrates their link to the ultimate plan of world conquest. The CIA was in Benghazi attempting to buy back the weapons. I think the Ambassador and his assistant and the two seals were murdered to cover up this transfer of weapons. It also explains one of the real puzzling aspects of the raid — that the terrorists burned the compound — especially the papers from the safe (which might have contained the evidence of the weapons transfer). The people there were convinced that if the seals and Delta Force guys had not arrived all 30 of the CIA personnel would have been slaughtered. This is why they were silenced with non-disclosure contracts. It is entirely possible that the FBI has stumbled onto the smoking gun — but if so, we will see a rash of “suicides” and firings of top officials in the FBI. Only time will tell if this is true.


MAF: Excluding the last segment of Rolando’s email about Benghazi with which I agree, as far as the facts, and also parts of what he has written here and there in his email below (particularly the verifiable facts), with which I also agree — serious questions of moral and ethical principles arise begging for answers: In connecting such dots, then who are the good guys? And what should we do about the political evil around us, as moral and conscientious citizens?

Bust of Greek Philosopher Aristotle, who described a virtue as a “mean” or “intermediate” between extremes

It is a principle of logic to sometime take arguments to their ultimate logical conclusion. Interestingly both St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic genius, and Aristotle, a supposedly pagan Greek philosopher, agreed with this principle as they did on many other things, such as the mean between extremes is best, the teleological argument of final cause, etc. The bizarre scenarios that follow are the product of Rolando’s fertile rumination, from the lecturer in the video on Benghazi and other authorities he has cited previously — all begging for more answers:

According to Rolando, every US administration since Woodrow Wilson has purportedly committed HIGH Treason and perpetrated and abetted evil for its own sake, or for power or for profits. Just about everyone in power throughout the world, backed by inexhaustible wealth, seems to be complicit in one way or the other. Who then and where are the good guys? Who is opposing this Grand Master Plan and keeping it from reaching full fruition for over a century?

Are we to support then the US and the supposed share of American evil only because we are American citizens? So were the Nazis in Germany and the Soviets in the USSR, citizens of their respective countries. Did Germans and Russians do the right thing supporting their countries because of their nationalities and tortuous patriotism? If not, are those who rebelled and died for their ideals the only good guys? What about those who sat on the fence? And in a possible confrontation between the US and her ally the EU, that support a NWO, and the opponents, Russia and her allies, who denounce the NWO and embrace nationalism, again who are the good guys, or even the better guys? Who would you support if you were a citizen of Bermuda or Brazil? Do you sit on the fence and wait for the outcome? And if everything is rigged and the ballot box is compromised by machinations and evil in our own country, why are we sitting on these keyboards, pontificating, and not beginning a revolution in the underground, as my parents did in Cuba? What are we waiting for? I say all of this tongue-in-cheek because this is where all of these accusations of high treason, connecting alleged dots, and charges of world conspiracy lead.

I agree there has been a group of powerful international men and women who are willing to subvert the sovereignty of their own respective nations to establish an international New World Order, dressing the issue with beneficent motives, but in reality, as history has repeatedly shown, to satisfy their own greed for money and power. But I don’t travel so far down that road with speculation and accusations. I travel only as far as the preponderance of evidence draws a clear picture. So, I don’t agree with Rolando’s alleged Grand Master Plan and scheme of things of betrayals all around, corruption all around, and their stupefying ramifications — so these absurd questions do not arise with me; but if they did, I would know the answers and my actions clearly. I choose the lesser of two evils and support it with mental reservations, as to overcome the worse. As the Jesuits, taught the greatest CIA Director, Bill Casey, one must keep the eye on the ball, and not miss the forest for the trees, so that we can clearly discern the ultimate evil and combat it.

What is the purpose of all this conspiracy theorists’ information? Truth-telling and informing others by the dissemination of conflicting and overwhelming information about which, apparently, none of us can do anything about anyway, except confuse the many and demoralize the rest? Truth without a purpose, I have found, is an empty word. Before I’m misunderstood, let me give you a very simple example:

Consider an obese woman. You call her fat to her face. Motives count. Is there a purpose to the offense? An insult without cause serves no purpose, except to be unkind and cruel, an immoral act that could possibly result in psychological problems, inferiority complex, and could even result in suicide in an unbalanced person. But if we advise her to go on diet and exercise for her health, it is beneficial advice that if followed could improve her self-image, increase her quality of life and lifespan; therefore stating this truth is morally correct. But if we say it without purpose, without intending insult or without offering beneficial advice, just to assert a truth — it is an empty truth!

One therefore must have purpose, direction, goals, and be able to separate incompetence, misdirection, miscalculation, coincidence, error — from deliberate, ultimate evil — by keeping the eye on the ball! So I don’t agree with many of Rolando’s observations or rather blanket accusations, and definitely not the ramifications they imply. You may want to call my questions reality checks. I have an advantage over you because I lived in the entrails of pure evil, communism, and witnessed a prosperous country converted into a wasteland of misery and desolation, where freedom was squelched and tyranny and persecution established in its place. We must learn to separate bad from worse. Please take this, Rolando, as brotherly advice.


Rolando: Here is my response — all meant in good spirit. I fear that the problem is not that my observations are wrong, but rather as I quoted from John Lenczowski’s chapter in the book, Soviet Strategic Deception: “Soviet strategic deception succeeds not so much because of the ability of Soviet propagandists and agents of influence to deceive us, but because of our tendencies to deceive ourselves…[they] take advantage of our inclination to engage in wishful thinking or psychological denial. This manifests itself principally in ‘our reluctance to admit to the possibility of certain ugly realities.’ “

You [MAF] make the following statement: Are we to support then the US and the supposed share of American evil only because we are American citizens? So were the Nazis in Germany and the Soviets in the USSR citizens of their respective countries. Did Germans and Russians do the right thing supporting their countries because of their nationalities and tortuous patriotism? If not, are those who rebelled and died for their ideals the only good guys? What about those who sat on the fence?

Interesting question, but I think you are reacting to my observations not in your usual carefully thought out logical manner — in fact, it is often a response that I get from my skeptical friends. What one must understand is that the America of today is not the republic as it was conceived at the founding — it has been transformed into a system that is quite alien to the United States as I remembered it growing up (even though in certain parts of the country it was well on its way to collectivism — mainly in the Northeast). The good guys are the ones who support a return to the founding principles of this country, the ones who have fought against this rape of America — those who have sacrificed their careers, their reputations, their dreams and at times their very lives to defend these principles — people like you and Jose. They are the people who have fought against the leftist generated political correctness, which is nothing less than thought control as envisioned in the book 1984. These are the people who have stood up in the storm of condescension, vehement attacks and physical threats while naming those who have sought to destroy our republic — the communists, the socialists, the anarchists and the other forms of leftist utopian collectivism.  These are the people like David Horowitz, Anthony Sutton, John Stormer, Gary Allen, Philip Haney, Thomas Molnar, Gerhart Niemeyer, Dennis Cuddy, Chuck Morris, John Flynn, Stan Monteith and the many thousands of others who have fought and continue to fight this battle.

If the United States became completely communist in all its aspects, would you still be patriotic to her? If it became a nation ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood and exercised its will against the Jews and Christians, would you still support her? We fight these intellectual battles and man our keyboards because we still hold out the hope that we can prevail. When all seemed lost in Cuba did you stay and remain loyal to the new communist Cuban government? Of course not — you fled with your family and worked to regain back your country from these evil betrayers of human freedom. I doubt many of the persecuted Russians supported Stalinist Russia during the Great Terror. That is why millions fled to the West. The decent Germans did not support the Nazi government toward the end of the war when they finally began to see the true nature of National Socialism.
You [MAF] write: And in a possible confrontation between the US and her ally the EU, that support a NWO, and the opponents, Russia and her allies, who denounce the NWO and embrace nationalism, again who are the good guys, or even the better guys? Who would you support if you were a citizen of Bermuda or Brazil? Do you sit on the fence and wait for the outcome?

An interesting question. The NWO is a dream of the international socialists and not those who oppose collectivism. Putin is not an opponent of the NWO. He sees it as an opportunity and I in no way believe that Putin is a nationalist in the accepted sense of the word. He is a nationalist until he gains enough power in the world to become the leader of a world government. Why is he so busy aligning himself with the world terrorist movement if he were a nationalist? He is using them to undermine the West. The FSB continues to use every method to destroy the fabric of the United States — drugs, racial hatred, moral erosion, economic decay and all the other programs the Soviets have used for their entire history. The good guys are the people like Nigel Farage who led the battle against the EU domination of the UK. The EU is the enemy of the West — it has played a major role in destroying the economies of its members and behaves in a dictatorial way. Putin could have no better weapon against the West than the EU. Also it is much easier to capture a single government entity ruling all of Europe than to have to defeat all of the member states individually. The good guys are the ones who support nationalism for each of these countries and resist collectivism and control by central banks and the IMF. The only future of one who sits on a fence is a great fall — I am for taking sides.

You [MAF] write: And if everything is rigged and the ballot box is compromised by machinations and evil in our own country, why are we sitting on these keyboards, pontificating, and not beginning a revolution in the underground, as my parents did in Cuba? What are we waiting for?

The evidence of rigging of elections is so extensive that one knows hardly were to start. Virtually every conservative organization has spoken about and written extensively about how elections are rigged and stolen — either by forced reapportionment, busing paid voters to the ballet box, fighting voter ID measures, using the national media to smear candidates and even fixing electronically the voting machines. Why do you think so many lawsuits have been filed against voter ID laws? As was shown in the last two presidential elections many voters voted numerous times in different districts. We fight against this because otherwise America will become just another puppet country in which those in power steal every election.
You [MAF] write: Of course, I don’t agree with Rolando’s alleged Grand Master Plan and scheme of things, betrayals all around, corruption all around, and their ramifications — so these questions do not arise with me; but if they did, I would know the answers and my actions clearly. I choose the lesser of two evils and support it with mental reservations, as to overcome the worse. As the Jesuits, taught the greatest CIA Director, Bill Casey, one must keep the eye on the ball, and not miss the forest for the trees, so that we can clearly discern the ultimate evil and combat it.
I would be most interested in why you do not believe in my “grand scheme of things.” How can you argue with extensive evidence that the communists carried out extensive penetration of virtually every area of our society — the educational system, the media, the military, governments at every level, every government bureaucracy and administrative post, the UN and numerous non-governmental organizations. I have read extensive testimony in the SISS and HUCA documents for years. Do you not agree that the Yalta conference gave away Eastern Europe and 800 million lives to communism under Stalin? And that Alger Hiss was FDR’s main advisor throughout the negotiations? Now if you agree that the communists managed to deeply penetrate our government and society throughout the very same period that the Muslim Brotherhood was also penetrating these very same areas and that they were both seeking the aid of the very same influential people, then how can one not see that they must be working together? Do you think that Averell Harriman, Dean Rusk, Dulles brothers and other men of power in government would court two opposing groups at the same time — the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist Party? As for keeping one’s eye on the ball one must first recognize the ball. Unfortunately too many — even good conservatives have their eye on the wrong ball. The deep penetration of our government and society by the Muslim Brotherhood completely escaped them. Here is a good question — if the Muslin radicals are seeking world domination alone then why would Putin supply the number one terrorist state with nuclear capability? After all, Russia is well within range of Iranian ICBMs. And even intermediate range missiles. Why would they want to see the Middle East fall to a unified Caliphate, when the greatest oil and gas reserves exist off the coast of Israel? Why would they supply China with ICBMs and nuclear material? Why are our country’s leaders allowing the Russians to fly supersonic bombers just off both our coast and allow nuclear subs in our ports? Why would we sell Russia rights to 20% of our uranium deposits? Why did NATO and the CIA help supply the weapons to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and aid in the downfall of Qaddafi? Why did the CIA and military help train and equip ISIS?

It was Lenczowski who suggested to me that no government could make all their errors in one direction — to aid the enemy — at least part of the time one would do something right. That is, we cannot attribute everything to stupidity, incompetence and inexperience. I think it was Benjamin Disraeli who said that in politics nothing happens by accident. I would strongly suggest a careful reading of John Stormer’s book, None Dare Call it Treason…25 Years Later, for a careful chronicling of these betrayals and acts of treason.

You [MAF] write: What is the purpose of all this information? Truth-telling and informing others by the dissemination of conflicting and overwhelming information about which, apparently, none of us can do anything about anyway, except confuse the many and demoralize the rest? Truth without a purpose, I have found, is an empty word.

The first law of war is to know your enemy. If we are merely fighting to unseat Obama or prevent Hillary from taking office then we will accomplish little. If we think this is nothing more than liberal/leftist vs conservatives — then we will lose. If we think that our enemies do not mean it when they tell us they seek to rule the world — then we will be destroyed. It is interesting to note that American bankers funded Hitler and when some of them expressed concern that in his book Mein Kampf Hitler sought to exterminate the Jews, the German delegation assured the bankers that Hitler had no such inclinations and that Hitler wrote that to please the anti-Semitic elements in Germany. Chamberlain was convinced that Hitler was a man the Brits could trust and FDR expressed confidently that Stalin was a man we could also trust. And despite the fact that every treaty we signed with the Soviets had been broken unilaterally we continued to believe we could trust them — or at least that was what we were told by our homegrown traitors. Nancy Pelosi assured us that to find out what was in Obamacare we would have to pass it.

You [MAF] write: You may want to call my questions reality checks. I have an advantage over you because I lived in the entrails of pure evil, communism, and witnessed a prosperous country converted into a wasteland of misery and desolation, where freedom was squelched and tyranny and persecution established in its place. We must learn to separate bad from worse. Please take this, Rolando, as brotherly advice.

With all due respect, I think reality supports my contentions. I fear that what has affected your viewpoint is exactly that — you do not like to face the “ramifications they imply” or as John says: “…’our reluctance to admit to the possibility of certain ugly realities’.” In your life you experienced what most of us cannot truly imagine — having to leave the life you love and know and adapt to a whole new culture. I am sure that the idea that America, your new homeland, has fallen to these same forces is difficult to accept. It would be devastating as it is devastating to me to see the changes in the United States that I have witnessed over my lifetime. Despite the fact I have spent most of my life studying these things, to actually see the end approaching is overwhelming. Only our faith protects us.

While I yield to your personal experiences within the belly of the beast, one must also accept that those of us who really care and have read many of the stories of those who have suffered similarly and some even worse, are deeply moved by these stories. Defectors from the Eastern Bloc nations and Soviet Russia were amazed at how accurately George Orwell portrayed life in the Soviet system, even though he had never lived or visited the Soviet Union. Yet, one who has not experienced such evil can never really understand the emotional agony of one who has. I find that in trying to explain to my grandson the South of my early life, he has difficulty truly understanding it — it is something one has to live. I hope I am wrong about these things — nothing would please me more.


MAF: Rolando raises interesting questions that go to the root of the problem of unending “truths” and conspiracies. As usual I agree with many facts he states here and there, but then much of his explication does not really answer my questions for the here and now. His answers go back instead for Plato’s utopia of nonexistent, idealistic thinkers using confounding variables and circular logic. Many of the people Rolando mentions, such as John Stormer and David Horowitz know their enemies, know where they are headed, and they keep the eye on the ball; other thinkers are mired in their own revelry and speculating unending conspiracies. None are in positions of power as in Plato’s utopia! Sometimes it is best to pull away from all these armchair thinkers to see more clearly on one’s own. Nigel Farage is a hero for Rolando right now, but if and when Farage is engaged in political power and forced to compromise on anything or makes the “wrong decision,” he would soon end up in Rolando’s list of “traitors.” 

The same goes for Rolando’s list of armchair philosopher thinkers; if and when any of them is asked to join a government, and they perform in a way contrary to his thinking, they would find themselves in Rolando’s list of conspirators. So I suppose then that Rolando could very well deem Caspar Weinberger, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Schultz — despite their writings and their patriotic public service record, for having served under Ronald Reagan — traitors and part of the conspiracy. Sure the leadership in the former Soviet Union professed a communist conspiracy to conquer and dominate the world under totalitarianism, and many Western traitors served in that conspiracy, that has been proven beyond all doubt. Granted there is much disconnected evidence for all types of betrayals, cowardice, personal dishonor, and shameful compromises, but not of a unified all-encompassing conspiracy. In fact, I consider James H. Billington’s book, Fire in the Minds of Men, dealing with the origin of revolutions and the conspiracies revolving around them, one of the greatest books written on political philosophy. But to contend that all American presidents throughout the 20th and spilling over the 21st century have committed treason, are all part of a world order conspiracy that involves everyone, except a selected group of all-seeing, protesting thinkers, is preposterous!

The great heroes who helped bring about the collapse of Soviet communism and along with it destroy the greatest real conspiracy were numerous. To the brave men of the Polish Solidarity Trade Union, the Mujahideen of Afghanistan, and Boris Yeltsin, we must add former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Pope John Paul II, and the U.S. President Ronald Reagan with his great CIA Director, William Casey. The leadership of Yeltsin is indisputable, as is denial of the purported moral high ground of communism by Solzhenitsyn. What is not known is how President Reagan gave Soviet communism the coup de grace with the aid of several courageous Russian patriots, Russian double agents serving the cause of freedom for the United States and the West. I will only mention perhaps the most pivotal figure towards the end, one who paid with his life: Vladimir Vetrov (1928-1983); code name “Farewell” by his French handlers). The incredible technological feat of deception that Reagan and the CIA employed to bring about the end of the USSR thanks to Petrov’s audacity has to be read in full to be understood. But lionization of comfortably nestled armchair thinkers and accusations of endless conspiracies deny heroes like Petrov a place in the sun of liberty.  

Again I don’t dispute many of the historical facts Rolando pointed out regarding some verifiable events in geopolitics, the evil of ISIS, etc.; and more specifically, that there is extensive greed in the malefactors of great wealth (with perhaps even more envy from the manipulated masses), as well as corruption at the ballot box. I differ in the conclusions he draws from them and what to do about them morally. In his scenario, if there is nowhere to go with elections, because they are “completely rigged,” what should we do then? Seeking “truths” and following paths that lead nowhere; Informing others apparently is not enough… Yes, for the Democrats the end justifies the means, even if it’s corruption at the ballot box. But corruption and extensive rigging of elections will only succeed if good people do not make the effort to stop it. And in a republican form of government there are ways to combat corruption, such as enforcing the law and legal challenges when that fails. I do agree it is the Democrats who to the greatest extent do the most to steal elections. But this is an erroneous leap of faith to call the U.S. elections rigged with the implication that voting then is futile.

I ask questions in simple terms, as I explained, to simplify and clarify, rather than to further cloud and obfuscate the issues. You said you chose sides, but your side is with armchair thinkers, Ivory Tower political philosophers, who for the most part do not get their hands dirty in the political arena. Some are clear headed, others muddy headed, followers of Plato at best, not the-real-to-life Aristotelian, practical men of flesh and blood who run the world. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

So for me, when looking forward as to divine where we are headed, it is better to study the lessons of history, the actions of doers of deeds, real-to-life historic figures, than read into the verses of visionary dreamers who build castles in the air and expect human perfection, impossible to create with fallible men.

Yet, for you, all the men in the arena, world leaders in power, are traitors in cahoots with each other. There are people who are doing what they think is best for their countries, nationalists, such as Putin and his dealings with Turkey and Iran; the Kurds trying to gain their independence and become a new nation out of the midsts of territories in three countries, Iraq, Turkey and Iran; Iran trying to become a world power to threaten its neighbors, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, etc. And Iran is in an enviable position and succeeding because both Putin (for nationalistic reasons) and Obama (for possibly ideological reasons) are courting her. Turkey, a heretofore ally and member of Nato, should have found herself in the same position, but for the Kurds’ animosity (our putative allies) and the European and U.S. arrogance coupled with a dearth of geopolitical knowledge. The present American leadership is unreliable, untrustworthy, rudderless, and incompetent (virtually the laughing stock of the world) and with a propensity to betray and not being able to tell friend from foe. No wonder many countries are bolting from our (Obama’s) friendship and joining with Russia (Putin’s) bloc. Who can blame them? But that does not mean that Russia, Turkey, the U.S., and the EU are unified for power behind the scenes weaved together in a Grand Master global conspiracy. It is true that many of these powers are joining together against the U.S. for different geopolitical reasons. Moreover we are envied because we are purportedly “the only remaining global superpower,” and for Russia and China, this is a matter of nationalism, prestige, as well as national envy and global power: The same type of sins that commonly afflict, overwhelm, and doom men. 

The movers and shakers of the EU and the USA (supported by most Democrats and many moderate Republicans) do want the NWO, for the acquisition of private wealth or the assumption of power on a global scale. They are trying to get China on board, do the same, and join them, but China is siding with Russia for obvious reasons. Russia is also rightly cultivating Turkey, which our EU allies have repeatedly humiliated with the 100 years old unending accusation of committing the “Armenian Genocide,” as well as the European ludicrous criticism of her “human rights record” in time of crises. Turkey, no wonder is gradually joining Russia’s group, not ISIS. Russia and her allies are in fact now to the “right” of the U.S., when it comes to socialism and economics in the political spectrum; we are to the left of them! Disjointed conspiracies leading nowhere — for example, claiming that all world leaders are part of a grand design or in favor of a NWO is ridiculous and obfuscating, rather than elucidating.

As for arming ISIS, you must be referring to arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was the right thing to do. It helped bring the Russian Bear, the powerful “Evil Empire“ to its knees. The future was not predictable; just as we could not predict the sudden fall of the USSR as late as 1988! In hindsight, sitting comfortably in an armchair is easy to pontificate on the right course of action; but for Ronald Reagan, the man in the arena, he had to act, and he acted decisively, helping bring the Soviet bear to its knees. As to the current geopolitics of the Middle East today, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., as I pointed out, is beyond the comprehension of the Obama’s administration, at best, or an ideologically compromised Democratic Presidency, at worse. They have supported this faction of Islamic groups at one time and then another at different times without justification or any declared reason of State. I believe the greatest number of present American politicians are more likely incompetent than traitors. No, I do not believe that either foreign communists or the Moslem Brotherhood have extensively infiltrated and presently run this country. Incompetent politicians and homegrown hypocritical, power-hungry socialists do so!

I know Rolando is dedicated to “truth, wherever it leads,” but as I said before, the search of truth wherever it leads, leads to nowhere unless you know the ultimate enemy, and when confounded by evil, choosing the lesser one plowing through the trees in the forest. In this age of information, facts and opinions abound, but political wisdom derived from true knowledge is lacking.

“Possibilities,” yes; they need to be considered and then discarded when they lead nowhere. The “ugly realities” are there sometimes by design, sometimes by man’s fallibility and stupidity. Finally, John Lenczowski’s chapter confuses “reluctance” with healthy skepticism, without which fallacies, as David Hume pointed out more than two centuries ago, abound. “Facts” galore, clues leading to unending possibilities, possibilities made certainties, coincidences turned into conspiratorial plots, etc. They lead to error as in the wilderness of mirrors. The JFK assassination cottage industry is a good example. I recommend Bugliosi’s excellent book on the JFK assassination, not just for the historical facts but for the masterpiece lesson in logic and the rules of evidence. I know of no other way to explain my case.

The world is a hard place especially for those who think. As Hobbes said in Leviathan, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” We need to see clearly and separate ultimate evil and choose the opposite, or at least the lesser one, rather than become mired in searching “truths” that lead nowhere but to confusion and the fact that man can be venal as well as nasty and brutish and do immense evil in his short life. All taken in good faith, my good friend.


Rolando: Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, it seems that we have not approached clarity as yet. I am somewhat confused by the statement in your first three paragraphs:
Who exactly am I following that has “mired my thinking”? If Horowitz and Stormer have their eye on the ball, do you think that Neimeyer, Monteith, and Voeglin are just Platonistic dreamers and not men of practical solutions? In fact they see the neoPlatonists as the problem — these collectivists are the utopian dreamers that have created this chaos. None of the men I quote are disciples of Plato (or Aristotle). The reason I study the writings of these men is that they spent their lives searching answers to the most important questions — one of the most important being — Why do men devote their lives to something that has never been and never can be — utopia?
Most of my time has been spent pouring through hard data concerning the practical aspects of the collectivist revolutions that have altered the world so drastically and that have produced so much misery, economic destruction, suppression of real progress, and death in the world. Most of my conclusions that you seem to disagree with, are based on my own thinking and further based on the hard observations of men like John Stormer. As Richard Weaver emphasized time and again — ideas have consequences. People behave based on their worldview and it is the elitist, gnostic worldview that led to collectivism and totalitarianism. These are not just academic ruminations — we must firmly have in our minds how the enemies of freedom think and know what motivates them. We can only understand that by reading the works of these great thinkers, men who have spent their careers searching for these truths.

The search for truth is never a waste of time — it is, or at least should be, what guides us. It was Pilate who asked Jesus — “What is truth.” He understood that it was the search for truth that dominated men’s mind for all ages because it was what made life livable. If we are always choosing between something that is “bad” versus something that is “worse” and choosing the former, then we will always be moving in the direction of evil. That is because all the doers of evil need do is up the ante — on each occasion they offer an even more radical proposal than previously and by picking something less evil you are gradually moving in the direction they want. This is how we have gotten where we are now. The leftists attack the idea of moral certitude. We compromise and accept in part moral relativism but not entirely. They then propose mixed dormitories for boys and girls. We compromise but insist on certain protections. They then propose an even more radical arrangement within the dorms — such as cohabitation and same sex interaction and we compromise. It is evident that it is always the defenders of moral absolutes who are yielding and with each compromise — that is choosing the lesser of two evils — we, in the end, agree to what they asked for in the beginning.
Who ever dreamed that our nation would be the moral mess that it is today? That Christianity would be openly attacked in every segment of society and that homosexuality would be taught in our schools — even to grade school kids. This occurred because we accepted the principle of compromise — choosing the lesser of two evils. As Russell Kirk explained — as conservatives we agree to compromise within the framework of our system of beliefs, but never in opposition to them. The modern Left is attacking every core belief of conservatism and asking us to become co-conspirators in the rush toward world collectivism by compromise. A review of Stormer’s book, for example, is a chronicling of one compromise after another that has led us to the point of facing world socialism dominated by a central authority. This process of not seeking revealed truth and then adhering to that truth has led us to a very dangerous world that could end in a war far beyond anything the world has ever known. Seeking truth does not confuse the people, it enlightens them and arms them against deception. It is unending compromise of our principles that leads to destruction.

There are times that we might have to choose a candidate less than we would like just to give us time to gather our forces and seek a better candidate next time. But, I would never just accept someone on a permeate basis just because there are worse people in the political spectrum. I was once asked during the [Bill] Clinton election if I thought [George H.W.] Bush was a better candidate. I answered — “It all depends. Do you want your socialism all at once (Clinton) or gradually (Bush).” Of course one would prefer gradual because the immediate implementation of socialism would end all resistance and freedom of speech.
The reason that we always have to choose between bad and worse is because the Republican leadership shares the dream of the Democrats — a collectivized world — maybe a little less draconian, but basically collectivist and gnostic. It is time to remove the Republican Party leadership and replace them with real conservatives. No one is perfect but as long as they adhere to core values, we will be in good shape. I also think you are wrong about the JFK assassination. I disagree with Bugliosi’s conclusions. The book by Corsi makes mince meat of him. The truth shall make you free! Your friend, Rolando.


MAF: Rolando, there is no confusion at all on my part. I know my battles. As to great thinkers, surely we can learn from them, but we should not follow anyone of them blindly. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff. They all make their mistakes. Even Aristotle, the greatest by far, made his share of mistakes (understandably for him at least, because for his scientific observations the times were not yet ripe for them). When I was talking about Platonists and Aristotelians, I was speaking not of any of them as followers of the Academy or the Lyceum but of their mode of thinking.

I agree once generally with much of what you factually wrote, but not the analyses and conclusions you derived from them. You ignore the masses as if they were inert matter molded like clay by the conspirators. In fact, portions of the population that in former times were referred to as the proletariat, acting as mobs are the instruments for the voter fraud you mentioned in rigging elections. They are also the power base of demagogues throughout the world. I also clearly and strongly disagree with two of your last three paragraphs about Vincent Bugliosi’s book and the ultimate goals of the Republican Party. They show that the gulf between us on these issues are insurmountable. With Corsi and Bugliosi, we differ as to what constitutes logical reasoning and the establishment of truth. This is a fundamental difference between us that cannot be negotiated. Corsi, a supposed conservative, is really a conspiracy theorist who relies on loose ends and speculation, having an axe to grind against the politically-incorrect evil corporations. Like most conspiracy theorists, he gathers “facts” that fit preconceived notions and ignores those which inconveniently detract from his thesis. Questions keep arising from minor contradictions that arise from the fallibility of human beings or mere coincidences, but as proof of a grand but non-existent conspiracy. Bugliosi relies on logic and proof, sorting out the evidence and separating the wheat from the chaff with the master skills of a top notch prosecutor, which he was. It is you who is incorrect; it is Bugliosi who makes mince meat of Corsi and all other conspiracy theorists before him, and not the other way around!

With the Republican Party, once again, you confuse excessive timidity, cowardice, and outright personal betrayals with collectivism. The GOP fears the powerful media and the jealousy and negativism that the opinion cartel mongers can incite in the fickle masses already sensitized by the same media and popular culture to political correctness and socialism. The power-hungry Democrats are clearly the socialists. Sure there were betrayers in the GOP — e.g., George H.W. Bush — or panderers to the media — e.g., John McCain — as with every side and conflict. But there is a major difference between the political parties, and when you blur that difference you lose track of the ball to the benefit of the enemy. What is the use then of stopping Hillary, as you have claimed some time back, if there is no difference or very little difference between Republicans and Democrats and they all commit treason once in power, at least since the time of Woodrow Wilson as you stated? And anyway they are all in favor of the NWO. Don’t you see the many contradictions?

You also intimate a final collapse of freedom in the hands of these wicked conspirators. But if in the end Western civilization collapses, it will not be because of a grand conspiracy, but from a rejection of its tenets by our own culture and the cataclysmic decline in the population of the West because of a people who sadly are no longer proud of their heritage and care not for itheir own progeny. This rejection is a product of decades of attacks on our civilization and heritage, and the promotion of collectivism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, secular humanism, all taught in our public schools and promoted by the liberal media and the popular culture, as discussed in several articles on

Finally, when the Apostle John wrote that the Truth will set you free, he spoke of Ultimate Truth — Truth with a purpose — not little facts amounting to a hill of beans and weaved into evil conspiracies on a global scale in which all world leaders, past and present, for over a hundred years participate. We will just have to agree to disagree. Your friend, MAF


Rolando: I see that we will never agree on these areas of contention. I never said there wasn’t any difference between the parties — only that the leadership of the Republicans is solidly behind the NWO, which is collectivist and fascist. The multinational corporations and international bankers are pushing for a new world order based not on freedom and security for the United States, but for their own self aggrandizement. Some of the elite are driven by a philosophy and for others it is pure greed. By reading deep into this literature one sees with greater clarity than one can just by following politics and contemporary movements. I have watched as the traditional conservatives have been edged out by the big government, globalist, gnostic elitists so that now the conservative movement consists of the Trotskyite neoconservatives who see as their mission to remake the world into a democratic, one world democracy, which while not strictly socialist is collectivist and will be run by the interest of the multinational corporation/international banker crowd who couldn’t care one wit about ordinary people.

Castro would never have come to power but he convinced enough Cubans that he was a better choice than Batista and he fooled a number of influential media and politicians in the USA as well. The takeover of Cuba would never have happened had not traitors within the State Department (the 4th floor) — traitors selected and defended by JFK (despite the security and intelligence community warnings), engineered Castro’s rise to power. The same is true in China as well as the Soviet Union. One needs to understand what motivates these people to betray not only the US but also freedom in other countries and that can be learned only by delving deeper into the organizations that are actually behind these events.

There is abundant evidence that the multinational corporations and international banking community are the ones making up this shadow government. The one thing they fear is exposure. During the Reese Committee hearings on tax-exempt foundations, Congressman Hays (D-Ohio) continuously interrupted those testifying and disrupted the hearings until they were defunded. Carol Reese asked him why he was doing that and he answered that “it came from high up”. He asked, “How high”? and was told all the way — meaning President Eisenhower. If we have a shadow government directing the show, analyzing observable politics will do nothing to stem the tide. The evidence is compelling — Anthony Sutton’s books make this evident. I have a friend who worked with him and knew him very well. He said one of Sutton’s hard and fast rules was to never publish anything that could not be proved and fully referenced. That is enough evidence for me. Your friend, Rolando


MAF: This last missive from you is the most accurate and logical, supported by documentary evidence. But while I concur to a significant degree with these statements, I still disagree in how it all came about! Yes, there are conspiracies out there, but they are not as far reaching as you describe and as unified as you allude. Mutual jealousies and interests, as James Madison pointed out in Federalist #51 and #52, keep men from forming and maintaining such an overwhelming conspiracy. There is much more disjointed cruelty, incompetence, greed and far more envy, than a grand design conspiracy in which all world leaders are communists allied with transnational corporations using Islamic troops as the foot soldiers. The current situation looks bleak, I agree, but it’s so because of the growth of the mentality of socialism, the cult of victimhood, political correctness, loss of virtues (particularly the erosion of the cardinal virtues), the decline in educational standards, etc. Also you seem to provide no real choices for the future, except for the return to the Constitution and alluding to a return to the past, which even I admit, is becoming more politically elusive for the first and impossible for the latter.

And there is still a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. To me having lived under socialism/communism, the differences are obvious not just in degrees but in substance.  Suffice to say that despite all of its weaknesses and compromises, had we not had an opposition party in the USA, the GOP, the Party of Freedom, to put a brake on collectivism in the U.S., we would have: Full socialism (or even communism or fascism, birds of a feather) with 75-90 percent income redistribution; no Fox News and no Washington Times, and no major dissenting electronic media; no opposition talk radio or internet access freedom; no private schools, not to mention home schooling; empty churches and cathedrals (except for some recalcitrant minorities who may defy their own party); no private medicine for decades; complete regulation of all medicines, nutrition products, and herbal supplements; dynamic entries for suspicion of politically-incorrect activities (police raids with no-knock warrants  granted at will by political judges); and certainly no Second Amendment, but full gun control and civilian disarmament. Ascertain the voting record of your legislators to corroborate my assertion. And we don’t have to visit Cuba or go back to the USSR to further ascertain the path the socialist Democrats will take us. Most of this can be confirmed in the social democracies of Western Europe! Were it not for the GOP, we would not have the wealth, prosperity, free enterprise (even if tainted with some degree of corporativism), and liberty we still enjoy; but we would be a poor third world backwater where nobody would work but would expect to live at the expense of his neighbor.

I have read most of the same material you have read, and the question arises: Were you to be correct, why even bother? Our choices are so bleak! Yet I would go with the Republicans, businesses, and the corporations (now that apparently you admit at least there is a difference of degrees), rather than with the statist Democrats and the totalitarian collectivism they espouse, such as bigger government controlling all aspects of our lives and despising corporations while hypocritically enjoying their benefit! — MAF 

Dr. Miguel A. Faria (MAF) is a retired neurosurgeon and medical editor. He is the author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). He is President of Hacienda Publishing, Inc.

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Proof of an old conspiracy in motion? — Opposing views!, September 19, 2016. Available from:–opposing-views.

Copyright ©2016

Share This Story:

1 thought on “Proof of an old conspiracy in motion? — Opposing views!”

  1. Dr. Miguel A. Faria

    John Stormer’s 1964 seven-million copy best seller, None Dare Call It Treason, is the most successful in the history of conservative journalism and is still relevant today. John Stormer’s book had a dramatic impact on Ronald Reagan personally and the movement that later elected him as president. My interview with this great Christian conservative, who did so much to educate the public, was conducted in 2014.— Cliff Kincaid

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top