LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

SECONDLY: Quisling observed that the Jewish international had had
some effect on the affairs of Soviet Russia. How unfortunate! What an
error this would have been had Mr. Quisling wanted favorable publicity
in the Sieff-Mond Guardian-Eflerman papers!!
THIRDLY: Quisling regarded the League of Nations with suspicion,
thereby forfeiting the support of the Keyneses, Welleses, Streits, and
other bootlicking agents of the Bank of International Settlements and its
then Paris, and still London affiliates; in short by all these three
positions, he dissociated himself from the Mandels, Blums and
Stavitskys.
Quisling’s position against Bolshevism was to him a position against
“universal materialist republic under Jewish dictatorship,” a position
analogous to that taken by Finland. But Quisling owned, so far as it
appears, no nickel mines, and therefore the publicity controlled by
“Anglo-Canadian nickel (alias, Melchett, etc.) would hardly give him a
“build up” in “Time” or other Jewish-owned American organs. At the
time of Sanctions, Quisling’s party was for Norwegian neutrality. This of
course showed the cloven-hoof from the Morgenthau point of view.
Quisling was and is, however a Norwegian and judged the matter in its
relation to Norway’s interest. His movement however took NO sides. He
was worried by the Soviet participation in the League of Nations and by
the Jewish factor in Russian politics. It annoyed him that the lives of
people IN NORWAY were dominated by foreign policy and not by home
politics.
The idea that the citizens of a country should consider their INTERNAL
affairs does, of course, render Quisling incompatible with the Roosevelt
way of life; but even so it was scarcely high treason on Quisling’s part to
observe the 1936 situation IN Norway. Quisling was capable of the
magnificent axiom: “The influence of a state in foreign politics always
corresponds to the degree of development of its INTERNAL strength.”