You mean we can’t blame it on The Beatles and Stones?
I remember as a young kid getting an earful from a guy who was no Fabian fan.. a real sharp fellar.. his remarks left a mark on me as has the Progressive movement on us all.
IMHO...
Now tie in a) Morgan, Rockefeller (and all their related interests) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, b) how European international banking was extending its influence and power in America while making large profits all throughout the 19th century, and c) how Morgan was simply a European banking representative, and the picture will be complete.
Socialism is backed by globalist money interests. European politics since WWII prove the point. Nationalism is painted as bad, subservience to central banking is painted as good, Christianity and the Bible are painted as bad, media and education are controlled by the banking establishment and its foundation system and endowments and boards of universities - and a big, fat socialist government sits over every nation. The idea is... keep the “little people” out of owning things (without debt) and operating businesses. Entice the little people to stay in debt their entire lives, both personally and via government spending and borrowing. Control the capital markets so small business needs to go to the establishment for financing; disallow “little people” from investing directly in each other’s businesses. This keeps most small businesses small, and only a few will grow enough to become competitive with the big boys. And those that do will simply become part of the establishment, needing them when they require large financing or want to sell their business, i.e., “go public”.
Fabianism is tied in completely with the elite wealthy interests of the world - there is a distinct pattern to the financial fingers reaching out into the “developing world”, bringing monopolistic control and huge profits back to the elites.
IMHO, an in-depth study of Cecil Rhodes would be essential to understanding Fabianism.
Maybe of interest ping!
To be sure, though, some of the "old liberals" didn't have much sense of boundaries, so when new collectivist ideologies came along that appeared to be opposed to their own enemies, they didn't resist. They didn't have a demonstration of those ideas in action on which to form a critical judgment. That was true in Britain as well. Some free-trading old liberals couldn't see a clear line between their own ideas and those of the new collectivists.
But in those days or today, many people think of political movements or ideologies as street cars or subways. They aren't trying to get to the end of the line. They just go a few stops down the line to their destination. When hard times come, or a serious scandal or catastrophe happens, or when the country is gripped by a fever of new ideas, they give their support to an idea or movement that promises to rectify the things they see as wrong with the status quo.
I don't doubt that the people you cite may have been 100% in favor of some sort of socialist system. But the reason such ideas are translated into policy isn't because the country wants to reach the end station but because going a few stops down the line looks like a way to "fix" something that people see as wrong. I relate this to the current situation.
The people who voted in the current administration weren't necessarily trying to achieve some sort of socialist future. They were just reacting to events and current conditions and emotional appeals relating to those events and condidions. The people conservatives need to win over to return to office aren't necessarily those who want to restore some sort of prior state of things or push forward to some free market future. They'd be people who see in conservatism an opportunity to mend some things in the country that need mending without embracing some larger vision of how things should be.
A fine madness shared by many, both pernicious and contagious, and not susceptible to reason or logic.
Somehow, mankind is supposed to be “perfectible”, but only if the baser instincts are repressed or smothered completely.
Since individuals will not give up their imperfections willingly, they must be either beguiled or forcibly compelled to surrender those flaws, and submit to a reassessment and realignment of their critical facilities.
First, all the old ways must be suppressed into extinction, by humbling and subjecting the specimen, er, subject, er, citizen to all forms of humiliation and ridicule, suggesting that other opinions are not approved of, and that only the One True Way will lead to salvation (in reality, “slavation” would be closer to that definition).
The New Hierarchy must be established, with, of course, all the Learned Men at its pinnacle, and the lesser people there to support and provide adolation for the Learned Men.
All this is just a form of feudalism imposed without the force of arms being visible, but the police power behind this unnatural and compelled state of affairs for mankind is still being wielded in subtle and not so subtle ways.
In many ways, this New Hierarchy resembles both that imposed by the secular totalitarianism and dogmatic religious practice, which is by no means limited to what many believe the medieval Catholic Church had been prior to the leavening influence of the Reformation and Renaissance.
There is one major cult today that professes to support the whole hierarchy structure, Islam, which divides the world into three major groups - the Noble Islamic Gentlemen, the Dhimmi (which included the entire female gender), and the Kufir.
The Noble Islamic Gentlemen, of course, are the privileged ones, enjoying all the perquisites the world has to offer, which are denied to the next lower rank, the Dhimmi, essentially all those who accept the supremacy of the Noble Islamic Gentlemen, but are in reality in bondage to their rule. By any definition, this group are slaves.
And for any who do not accept the supremacy ot the Noble Islamic Gentlemen, the remaining classification, the Kufir or infidels, are subject to elimination by slaughter by the Noble Islamic Gentlemen, and are to be pursued to extinction by all means necessary. Christians and most definitely Jews are clearly part of this underclass of humanity, and other religions do not escape. Historically, once the cult of Islam has captured at least 10 percent of the population of any country, the affable nature of the Muslim disappears, and militancy takes its place, with the substitution of THEIR law, Shari’a, for whatever code of justice may have prevailed previously.
Any pretense of “democracy” disappears, as Islam and any kind of representation of divergent opinion are totally incompatible. In this, the objectives of Islam and “Progressives” become blurred and overlap to an astonishing degree.
It becomes a distance-and-direction urination contest which of these two top ranks of hierarchy takes rule, the Learned Men or the Noble Islamic Gentlemen. For those in the lower strata, who is master makes no difference, for they no longer hold any rights either way, or at least none that cannot be taken away at the whim of the ruling faction. But until the lines are drawn, these two factions will become willing allies in defeating what they believe to be the “unbelievers” of the world, those who do not accept that the hierarchy structure is the natural state of mankind.
The nation once known as the “United States of America” was the first embodiment of this widespread notion that one man need not submit to the dictatorial will of another, but could come together in an open negotiation between two parties, honestly arrived at, for the mutual benefit of both. At first, this concept was rather limited, but over time, the idea grew to encompass more than just all adult white males, as others were accepted into the circle of daily commerce, of other ethnic origins, though those may have once been bound by custom and archaic laws, eventually including females, and finally to extend a benevolent and just society to all who chose to accept the rules of civil behavior, swearing their allegiance to those principles.
Both Progressives and Islamist militants have declared this to be anathema, to be destroyed and eradicated and extirpated by any and ever means available and necessary. There is to be no sanctuary where this belief in free thought and opinion is to be tolerated, there can only be control from the top. Any challenge to that control has to be combatted and driven out.
And that is how the new Dark Age will descent upon mankind.