http://www.multinet.no/~falk/Hist01.htm

On November 25, 1959, the Council on Foreign Relations published “Study No. 7”, which openly declared its true purpose to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and through international economic interdependence:

· «…building a New International Order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, [and] for social and economic change…an international order [code for world government]…including states labeling themselves as ‘Socialist.’ »

The plan for the New World Order and the ultimate control of America by the international bankers, was clearly outlined once again in the April 1974 issue of “Foreign Affairs” the Council of Foreign Relations’ own publication, when CFR member and former Secretary of State Richard N. Gardner, wrote an article entitled “The Hard Road to World Order” in which he stated:

· “In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault…” one way to garner public support for new international treaties would be to propagandize world wide predicaments. If people are scared of terrorism, financial chaos or global warming, they will be willing to cede their national sovereignty, freedom and liberties for global authority.”

Også Roosevelt var av jødisk avstamning (Hollandsk innvandring via Brasil)…

kilde: John Charmley: Churchill. The End of Glory, 1993, side 336-337:
(da Churchill sto i fare for å måtte selge familiegården Chartwell … )

«It is often said that what distinguishes real life from fairy tales is former lacks those fairy godmothers with which the latter is so prodigally endowed, but those who hold that real life is stranger by far than fiction will hardly be surprised at the sudden appearance of a fairy godfather. Sir Strakosch was a South African financier of great wealth and influence, and as such it was hardly surprising that he was an acquaintance of the ubiquitous Bracken. What might be considered more surprising was his agreeing to take over Churchill’s losses for over Churchill’s losses for three years.37 It was an act of tremendous generosity , which enabled Chartwell to be taken off the market; but was it more than that?

On 7 April the Government’s Foreign Affairs Committee met to discuss Czechoslovakia. Determined to root out dissent, the Whips had put on pressure to get Nicolson removed from the Vice-Chairmanship of the Committee and had quizzed Emrys-Evans as to whether he was ‘pro-Chamberlain’ or pro-Eden’.38* During the discussions at the meeting Lady Astor, the American-born MP for Plymouth and a devoted Chamberlainite, said to one MP who was clearly advocating a British commitment to Czechoslovakia which might involve Britain in war, ‘You must be a bloody Jew to say a thing like that’. Churchill replied, ‘I have never before heard such an insult to a of Parliament as the words just used by that bitch.’39 Yet precisely the charge has, at least by innuendo, been levelled against Churchill himself. Strakosch, we are told as though it were significant, was a Moravian Jew,40 and ‘Focus’ was certainly bank-rolled by wealthy Jews who were, not unnaturally, concerned at the fate of their co-religionists in Germany. So was Churchill a ‘hired help’ 41 for a Jewish lobby, which, regarding Jewish interests as superior to those of the British Empire, was determined to embroil that Empire in a war on their behalf?

Such is the sensitivity about anti-Semitism since the revelations from the Nazi death camps that even to ask such a question is to risk the grave imputation of racial prejudice. But people have such prejudices and they were a great deal more willing to express them openly before 1945. Beaverbrook certainly believed that ‘the Jews may drive us into war’,42 and he was far from the only one; it was, and has remained, a central tenet of the argument of Sir Oswald Mosley and his fascists that it was the Jews who, through their influence in the British press and elsewhere, pushed against Chamberlain’s attempts for a rapprochement with Germany, thus making war more, rather than less, likely.43

Churchill was certainly involved with the Zionist movement, but only on [ the periphery (indeed he refused to lead a delegation on the Palestine issue to Chamberlain in early I938)44, and he was certainly associated with Jewish organisations which did take the view that the British Empire and its resources would serve their purposes well. But Churchill’s search for allies had also brought in the Russian ambassador, Maisky, pacifists and crypto-Communists from the left of the British political spectrum, trades unionists, feminists, and the weird and wonderful of all descriptions, as well as many ordinary men and women who, for reasons similar and dissimilar to his own, felt that Britain ought to pursue a stronger line in Europe. But unless we take the view that the communists, pacifists, etc., etc., were all part or this great Jewish conspiracy this line of argument begins to look threadbare, for we should have to allege that Churchill was a Communist sympathiser, or maybe a closet pacifist – and at the latter the mind will take no more.

Churchill’s association with the Jewish lobby was on the same terms as his association with Citrine, Dalton or Philip Nloel-JBaker- those who were against Hitler were his allies, and he was not going to ask too many questions about their motives or ultimate objectives. It was a line he was to pursue until 11 February 1945, when he finally began to realise that a mutual hatred of Hitler did not amount to a community of views on anything else; but by then it was all a little late. Strakosch had been feeding Churchill masses of information about German rearmament since I935,45 and he shared with him a view that Hitler’s ambitions were of the Napoleonic kind. He had looked to Churchill to champion his ideas, and he was only too willing to bail him out financially to enable him to continue to do so. Those with a taste for more sinister and lurid interpretations may indulge it, but no one would argue that Churchill only opposed Hitler because he was receiving cash for it; that opposition was, as we have seen, part of his general vision of British history. »

Noter

37 Churchill V, pp. 919-10
38 Nicolson Diary 1, 7 April 1938, p. 333
39 Dalton Diary, 7 April 1938, p. 226
40 Irving, p. 104
41 Ibid., Chap 6
42 Taylor, Beaverbrook, Beaverbrook to Frank Gannet 9 December 1938, p. 387
43. The samizdat Comrade published by the Friends of O. M.’ continues this line even now
44 Churchill V, companion vol. 3, Violet Pearman to Cazalet, 16 February 1938, p. 907, fn. 2
45 Churchill V, p. 683

Referanser:
N. Nicolson (ed.), Harold Nicolson: Diaries and Letters, vol. I: 1930-39 (1966)
H. Dalton, The Fateful Years (1957)
D. Irving, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power (1987)
Winston S. Churchill, vol. V, companion vol. i: The Exchequer Years (1979)

Vh!
Arno

Walter Langer, i The Mind of Hitler skriver:

«Adolf’s father, Alois Hitler, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber. It was generally supposed that the father of Alois Hitler (Schicklgruber) was Johann Georg Hiedler. There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois (an Austrian document was) prepared that proved Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back home, where Alois was born.»