LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

OBVIOUSLY such a union would not have been as advantageous to
Italy as the Axis. However it is not the Rome end of the Axis which is
demanding Quisling’s head. It is our opponents who have done their
utmost to turn his name into a common verb and make him a synonym
for anti-national activity whenever and wherever.
OBVIOUSLY Quisling’s plan would have been to the benefit of the
English. They would not have lost so many American bases, nor would
our position in the Mediterranean have been, by that plan, at all
improved. We might still be where we were in 1937. What is absolutely
and uncontestably apparent is that Mr. QUISLING’S OWN country
would not have suffered invasion, and this from the patriot’s view is of
chief importance. The present war would probably not have occurred. At
any rate it could not have started as an Anglo-German conflagration.
In any case, what is ABSOLUTELY incontestable is that Norway would
not have been invaded; and this from Mr. Quisling’s point of view, that
is from the patriot view, must be considered as important.
History will possibly decide whether Quisling’s attempts to avert war or
the efforts of Kuhn-Loeb and Co., and the yitto-brito financial agents IN
the United States to get the war started, and of their American
colleagues, half-breeds Bullitts, et cetera to GET the war started, that the
American effort to START war in Europe, in order to pick Europe’s
pocket, and ultimate[ly] to drive the American people into the shambles
will have proved to the advantage of England.
At any rate, as indicated in our brief earlier comment on the Quisling
paragraph in Roosevelt’s speech of May 27th, we believe Roosevelt’s
allusion to Quisling was due, as are so many of the President’s outbursts,
to his reading the positively, the WORST type of newsprint, until it
obscures his world outlook.