Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dumnonia's avatar

What a disgusting cast of anti-British actors. It makes one wonder what on earth the old establishment were doing in the first half of the century. Perhaps the subversion came too fast and was too embedded to dislodge by the time that the likes of Moseley entered the stage?

Expand full comment
Archangel's avatar

Hi Horus,

Many thanks for your thorough explanation. What puzzles me is the absence of purges. Once the importance of subversion is understood, why did Neville Chamberlain and his supporters keep Reith ? Why did they not change the top management and enact a large scale purge of the homosexuals, Fabians, Soviet sympathisers, Jews, and the ilk ? This passivity is astonishing.

In the same era, the Catholic Church was also passive towards infiltration and subversion. Under Pius XI several large scale enquiries identified networks of communist priests and bishops in relation with the Comintern, members of the free masonry, subversive theologians. One such enquiry was headed by the future Pius XII. Yet both popes took very little action, mostly ordering people to stop preaching or teaching subversive ideas. No purges.

In contrast the progressive adversaries have never had any qualms about purging conservatives and promoting their ilk.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts