[Carry_Okie]

The Abolition of Man is too obscure a link to this work to make by reference without building it yourself. Such an effort could do more to obscure the relationship than enrich it.

British authors of Lewis' clabire were well known to share mutual associations at that time. Obviously Lewis knew of the Fabian ambition, no less than he knew of the Jacobin mendacity founded upon the same precepts. As an author of a utopian book with both negative and positive elements he would clearly know Aldous Huxley (whose seminal Brave New World was published some twenty years before the Abolition of Man) and therefore would have been well aware of Julian Huxley's machinations through the UN. Orwell knew the Fabian players personally which obviously included HG Wells.

There was thus a strong discussion among the British intelligencia on the self destrcutive elements of the human beast as one would expect after such a war facing still the dual enemies of communism and fascism. Democratic socialism must have looked good by comparison.

I don't think the Europeans have ever had the disdain for democracy that was so inculcated in this country by our founders. This nation's emphasis upon the individual saved from much of that collectivist impulse. Hence the multi-decadal effort to destroy it here.

Now to your questions:

Is it too late for those who have not read that book to gain any useful insight from it?

Only for those who don't need to read it.

Is there nothing to gain from realizing that this behavior was already obvious over 60 years ago, yet somehow enough of us haven't been caring and forceful enough to stop the program?

It's principal value is that it was written that long ago, but then, so was Brave New World, or 1984 for that matter. Frankly, the combination of 1984 and BNW is by far more provocative to those who need to be reached than AoM.

And have too many people been convinced through the indoctrination programs that, indeed, the world will be better off with 6-7 billion less people on the planet?

Everybody seems to think that means "somebody else," a product of the subjectification of reality by our Sicko-Logical industry's effluence on pubelik ejacation, I think.

Do you think perhaps that this additional insight is worth pinging the list again?

Maybe once you've pondered more on the solution set.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

As an author of a utopian book with both negative and positive elements...

Thanks -- I'd forgotten about his trilogy, the 3rd entry of which, That Hideous Strength I have been told is a fictional version of AoM. It is on my "to read" list. But I am not hopeful there. While fiction is often more viscerally wrenching, it is clear that fictional accounts may be too far removed to appear to be a real threat, as I'll point out below.

You addressed most of my questions, and very well. I have followups below. But there were some other questions that were embedded in the indented paragraph. Those you didn't address. Such as how the Jacobins (a term that I only recently came to understand to be any group aiming to destroy the established order, not just the French revolutionary cadre -- is that right?) were apparently only distressed with the Nazi advancement of nationalist supremacy rather than the advancement of worldwide supermen who they deigned to possess intellectual agreeability.

The Questions addressed:

Is it too late for those who have not read that book to gain any useful insight from it?
Only for those who don't need to read it.

Egad, what a tautology! Those who don't need to read it would understand it easily. Those who would have difficulty reading it would need to read it most. The educational system that Lewis decried in AoM was set up with the aim to make it difficult to read, and disinteresting at any rate, for those schooled by the system he was decrying.

Yes, CO, you have read it well!

Is there nothing to gain from realizing that this behavior was already obvious over 60 years ago, yet somehow enough of us haven't been caring and forceful enough to stop the program?
It's principal value is that it was written that long ago, but then, so was Brave New World, or 1984 for that matter. Frankly, the combination of 1984 and BNW is by far more provocative to those who need to be reached than AoM.

As I suggested above, 1984 and BNW were required reading for the Baby Boom generation, but that didn't seem to spur us enough to rebel at the incremental advances -- effectively incremental -- toward those nightmares.

It is only in AoM that the threat is addressed as an intentional aim of a very real intelligentsia, and not a fictionalized account of one. A threat that aims to relegate the vast bulk of humanity to a status similar to cattle or sheep -- an aggregate expendable commodity within which any one of whose opinion on their own potentiality is made unimportant and ultimately illegitimate. The exact opposite of the involvement of our Judeo-Christian personal God. It's this last that so many of my libertarian friends don't yet see the importance of any deviation from, let alone the great aggressions the anti-religious minority have been permitted. And the timidity of leading Republicans to stand up against those aggressions appears to be a tactical ploy of those who are really in agreement with the anti-religious forces

As to the last two answers: Yes, too many act as if this is a friendly game of musical chairs that, once ended, they'll get a chance to play again!

And I will try to put my solution sets in order. I have not published our Curmudgeon's analyses yet to help me here. I have been planning on building something with them, and I intend to do so soon.