Comments on: Manifesto for the British Revolution

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:39:17 +0000

Points two and three are so completely opposed to point four that it is to laugh.

By: T. Beholder

T. Beholder — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:55:06 +0000

So after some noise cancellation and sharpening it looks thus:

1. The British Revolution makes sense only as an attempt at independence from Washington.

2. British attempt at independence from Washington can only be work of Devil or appropriate substitute thereof, such as tripod-riding Martians, Bushiltler, Trumputler, Zombie Pharao Brezhnev, etc.

Does this leave anything important out?

By: Bones

Bones — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 05:09:24 +0000

A few months ago after the discussion between someone and the author occurred about this subject, I went to Internet Archive and took out the book on a loan. The part that Forsyth wrote about the subversion of Britain was still in there.

If one were to look at the United Kingdom of today and compare it with the plan that the traitor Philby spells out, you would have to conclude that they are fully on track.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:28:47 +0000

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics all remain evergreen.

By: Phileas Frogg

Phileas Frogg — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:14:48 +0000

Conquest’s 3rd Law never gets old:

“The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.”