as already in the very early 1960s "montejurra" was advancing concepts, threads and rhetoric which raised many eyebrows, the monthly became subject to suspicion among the carlist pundits. in 1963 some traditionalist intellectuals grouped around a review "siempre" openly raised alarm, presenting the monthly as a vehicle of hugocarlistas in their bid for power in the movement. though "montejurra" avoided open confrontation with the traditionalists this time the editorial board stroke back; characteristically, the monthly posed as representative of orthodoxy against heterodoxes, not the other way round, and used loyalty to the claimant as a yardstick gauging fidelity to the doctrine. the general strategy of toning down controversies was used also later on and rather than to bank on secessions and defections in the party, "montejurra" tended to ignore them. expulsion of the chief enemy of progressists, zamanillo, was passed over in silence, and zamanillo was mentioned as if nothing had happened as late as in 1964. the traditionalists, already convinced that the monthly was controlled by subversive left-wing dissidents, attempted to mount a counter-offensive; during a massive 1966 carlist congress their formal proposal was that "the "montejurra" review is to be considered carlist, but not a doctrinal authority for comunión tradicionalista". the bid failed, yet also later "montejurra" did not openly challenge or lambaste the traditionalists; articles of their top intellectuals like rafael gambra were printed in "montejurra" as late as in 1968, and until the very late 1960s "montejurra" might have seemed "a mosaic" of not necessarily compatible outlooks.