Am I the only person who suspects for the Fabians to be entryists within the Labour Party and that their defense of Eugenics is just a cryptic form of social murder, as Eugenics necessarily just simply is, orchestrated by the likes of certain sets of factions within, primarily, as it concerns Intelligence in the U.K., MI6, as well as a few relatively obscure intellectuals within the Conservative and Unionist Party? Obviously, this is a conspiracy that I have hatched, but I do often wonder as to whether or not there are grains of truth to it.

In short, we're a bunch of kids cut loose unsupervised in a mall. — James Riley

I do agree with that statement. I certainly believe that mankind has a lot of growing up to do. And the current consumer-oriented culture that cares little about the future and even less about our spiritual well-being can only serve to exacerbate the situation and turn us all into obedient subjects of an all-controlling nanny state while we happily relinquish whatever power we have left.

And Fabians, of course, are among the first to applaud the advances of the nanny state. For example, the British Labour Party politician Margaret Hodge has defended policies she acknowledged had been labelled as "nanny state", saying at a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research that "some may call it the nanny state but I call it a force for good".

Christianity begins with Paul's myth of the physical body of the saved being transformed into a spiritual body and the saved being those who will live in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth forever. Paul believed it would happen in his lifetime. It didn't. The next generation believed it would happen in their lifetime. It didn't. This went on until the end of days was pushed forward to some undisclosed date.

Christians by and large have forgotten the broken promise. They now believe that they are already saved because they believe. The importance of Paul's spiritual body is that it would be free of the sins, but those who think themselves "saved" are no different from anyone else, often hiding their transgressions against God and men behind their show of piety. Yet they conspire to create a Christian theocracy to overturn secular governments. And like their Muslim counterparts they believe they are doing the will of God.

And Fabians, of course, are among the first to applaud the advances of the nanny state. — Apollodorus

It's an open conspiracy and everyone, everyone (me included) is in on it. Even those who would pretend to be the adults in the room.

Am I the only person who suspects for the Fabians to be entryists within the Labour Party and that their defense of Eugenics is just a cryptic form of social murder, — thewonder

I wouldn't call Fabians "entryists into the Labour Party" as they co-founded it and have been sitting on its national executive from the start. Hundreds of Labour members of Parliament are Fabians. Without the Fabians there would be no Labour Party.

That's why Jeremy Corbyn and the far-left unions failed. They tried to take over the party after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown but the Fabians reasserted their control with Keir Starmer and his new team of Fabians.

However, you are right about the Fabians' Eugenicist tendencies. G B Shaw wrote "what we are confronted with now is a growing perception that if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it" - Preface, On The Rocks, 1933.

Perhaps, just the campaign of ostensively ethical Eugenics on their part? I can't rationalize how what is just simply ultimately a Social Darwinist strategem has become fairly popular among liberal utopian Socialists. They, now, seem to endorse a form of Eugenics advanced by the sets of society of which Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley's brother and partial inspiration for A Brave New World, was a part of. If you watch Homo Sapiens 1900, though obviously a critical documentary, it does seem fairly clear that the racialist and classist tendencies were part and parcel to Francis Galton's theories, the history of Eugenics is inextricably tied to totalitarianism within the former Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany, and that whatever ostensive collective good it was that Julian Huxley endorsed ought not to justify what does ultimate as a form of social murder necessarily, as it'd seem to be commonly understood by that Aldous Huxley's allegory is taught in most high schools. I don't understand why the Labour Party has not absolved themselves of such notions, aside from my rather spurious claim that it has something to do with British Intelligence.

The think tank Policy Exchange was founded in 1999 by UK Prime Minister and Fabian Society member Tony Blair, another leading Fabian Peter Mandelson, Germany's Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and US Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Among many other organizations promoting globalism Tony Blair also founded The Tony Blair Institute For Global Change. — Apollodorus

Interesting, but I assume Jeremy Corbyn surely wasn't a Fabian (or am I wrong?). The way how Blair was against Corbyn and predicted a disaster (which the elections were, so Tony was right), I assume that there is an opposition to the old-school Fabians in the Labour party.

Now the leader Keir Starmer is for a foreigner like me a total unknown.

I don't understand why the Labour Party has not absolved themselves of such notions, aside from my rather spurious claim that it has something to do with British Intelligence. — thewonder

I really don't know much about the role of British intelligence in this. I suppose I will have to look into it. But social engineering has long been part of the Fabian agenda. Wells himself speaks of "controlling and redistributing" the world's population in his book. As I said, his plans were really very far-reaching in many respects. I can understand why some people agree with the idea of a nanny state, but I for one wouldn't like to be social engineered just because the Fabian state wants so.

Again, that's just a conspiracy that I harbor, but I just can't understand why a political organization like the Labour Party would continue to, at least, tacitly, support a biopolitical campaign that has been largely discredited and has had very clear dire consequences throughout human history.

I feel kind of the same way about black liberation and the Nation of Islam, though, would obviously substitute the Central Intelligence Agency for MI6. Within any left-wing or radical circles, though, chalking up any misguided ideas to having something to do with Intelligence is kind of a problem in its own right, and, so, am willing to admit that I am exclusively engaged in speculation.

To use the National of Islam as an example, though it would be unfair to blanketly characterize the organization as such, there are currents of a somewhat fanatical black separatism within it, proclivities towards black supremacism, strains of anti-Semitism, quasi-fundamentalist mystic Islamism, and an often all too reckless form of revolutionary orthodoxy. When you consider the life of Malcom X, it can seem as if he had been conscripted within the organization before becoming ardently devoted to it before having effectively renounced it. With some of the political history of the black liberation movement often lacking in any definite explanation, it does seem to be all too fortuitous for nearly every publicity crisis that the movement has to be traced back to the same organization, especially when its most notable member was responsible for, perhaps, the most divisive split within the anti-racist protest movement, which, upon leaving, he later attempted to rectify.

I'm not suggesting that the Nation of Islam is or was just simply a CIA front; I'm just suggesting that it could be possible for the organization to have been, to some degree, infiltrated, and, to some degree, utilized in dividing the various set of political factions to have come out of the Civil Rights Movement. If you take kind of long look into its somewhat esoteric history, there are a number of things about it that seem to be kind of odd.

I am also willing to posit that something similar could be happening with Eugenics and the Labour Party.

Being said, the truth is often stranger than fiction and people often come to rather odd social, political, or spiritual reasons wholly on their own and, as before, I would warn against forthrightly levelling accusations of entryism or espionage, as it can often be rather destructive. In the beaten way of self-critique, I have become isolated from the Anarchist movement as a Pacifist because of the Black Panther Party, and, so, do have a vested interest in criticizing the Nation of Islam, and, so, can't quite tell, myself, as to what is a well-founded suspicion and what is just simply a paranoid and persecutory complex.

An aside: As that the raison d'être for that people who are classified or identify as "punks" hate people who are classify or identify as "hippies", aside from that most Anarchists do tend to preclude strict nonviolence, is often cited as being because of the "diversity of tactics", effectively as it was adopted by the Black Panther Party, who, if you didn't know, does have an Anarchist faction, thereily leaving me with an odd kind of "white savior complex", as I am effectively trying to figure out how to convince the Black Panthers to let me back into the Anarchist movement, which, to me, seems rather unlikely, as, when the hippies tried to engage the Black Panthers within psychological encounters back in the late 1960s, it kind of resulted in a total breakdown of the social order. Experimental psychology may have just not been the way forward, but, as I'd basically be asking them to either revoke or reform their interpretation of "self-defense", effectively the foundational concept to their general ethos, it seems rather unlikely that I would be capable of convincing them of this favor, especially since I do happen to, at least, appear as person whom most people would assume is "white".

Interesting, but I assume Jeremy Corbyn wasn't a Fabian (or am I wrong) and the way Blair was against Corbyn and predicted a disaster (which the elections were, so Tony was right), I assume that there is an opposition to the old-school Fabians in the Labour party.

Now the leader Keir Starmer is for a foreigner like me a total unknown. — ssu

Starmer was a total unknown to most people except to the Fabians. A barrister/lawyer to anyone who had heard of him if at all. I think he was running a Trotskyist magazine for a while.

Yes, there is an opposition within Labour as I said. The left-wing unions and the right-wing Fabians. It's always been that way. The deal that was done from the start was for the unions to provide members and funds and for the Fabians to make policy, write policy papers and manifestos, carry out research, run elections, and generally do the brain work for the party.

Corbyn's far-left unionist gang tried to rebel and take over but they failed. Of course Labour has always been more successful with Fabians in charge but last time around, under Blair and Brown it got kicked out by the voters and the Tories have been in power ever since - from 2010. That's a long time in politics and as things stand right now it doesn't look good for Labour. The Tories would need to make some really big blunder to lose to Labour.

The other problem Labour has is that it is seen as a party for minorities ever since it abandoned the British working class in favor of ideology-driven far-left policies and militant Islam.

I'm not so sure that I foresee the danger of "militant Islam" within the Labour Party, who seems so inclined to be of a generally agreeable ethos in that regard, similar to that of Adam Curtis. They're not quite like the International Socialist Organization who offered a "critical, but unconditional support", whatever that means, for Hamas during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

I'm not so sure that I foresee the danger of "militant Islam" within the Labour Party, — thewonderLabour'

Well, I was talking about Labour's image with voters. Corbyn didn't do his party a service by apparently endorsing extremist Islamic organizations as well as far-left groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) while at the same time also having an "anti-Semitic" problem. When you start playing off one ethnic group against another for political gain it doesn't take long before people start to wonder what your game is. That's why Corbyn never stood a chance as a leader and Labour never stood a chance with him in charge of the party. Add to that the Fabians' opposition to him and you'll start seeing the problem.

You have me tracting down information and reading as fast as I can and I don't have anything worth saying yet, but I am having a wonderful time. Thank you. :grin:

You have me tracting down information and reading as fast as I can and I don't have anything worth saying yet, but I am having a wonderful time. Thank you. :grin — Athena

Oh, you're most welcome. Do take your time. It's all very interesting stuff I think and I doubt you will regret it in the end. Reading does tend to open one's horizons especially when it comes to new topics of this kind.

While Martin McGuinness was a former leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, he later became Sinn Féin's chief negotiator in the peace process. Engaging in dialogue is not the same thing as fostering political terrorism.

While Martin McGuinness was a former leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, he later became Sinn Féin's chief negotiator in the peace process. Engaging in dialogue is not the same thing as fostering political terrorism. — thewonder

I agree. However, the republican movement had a political wing represented by Sinn Féin and a paramilitary group represented by the IRA and its various offshoots like the Provisional IRA (PIRA).

Corbyn's alleged links to the IRA were reported in the press:

Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links

This contributed to Labour and especially Corbyn having a negative image with voters.

Oh, you're most welcome. Do take your time. It's all very interesting stuff I think and I doubt you will regret it in the end. Reading does tend to open one's horizons especially when it comes to new topics of this kind. — Apollodorus

From the mother thread.

Well, it is a critical study. However, the point about Fabianism is that it seeks to implement socialism by stealth. This is clear from the Fabians' own statements. The method is called "permeation" in Fabian writings and it refers to putting Fabian socialist ideas into people's minds without letting them know that those ideas are socialist. It's a technical term in Fabian Socialist theory that you need to be familiar with in order to understand what the author is saying. I thought you were aware of it already. — Apollodorus

:grin: I have been pondering thoughts all night. First for the word "conspiracy". It originates from Latin meaning to breathe together, which becomes agreement and later a secret plot.

Sorry I am a very slow reader and feel a need to respond before I have completed the reading.

What possible ideas could the Fabians have that are more radical than Christianity? > especially the Anababitist and the Munster rebellion come to mind.

Anabaptist Münster rebellion - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Münster_rebellion
Siege — The Münster rebellion was an attempt by radical Anabaptists to establish a communal sectarian government in the German city of Münster ...
‎Rebellion · ‎Siege · ‎Aftermath · ‎References — wikipedia

The people who started this rebellion did so with pamphlets

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters including the distribution of wealth. — Wikipedia

It appears a big conflict with Catholicism is a hierarchy of authority and aristocratic social organization versus equality in every way.

But Anabaptism was not a single movement because in the region there were peasant wars and an attempt to establish a theocracy and evenly distribute wealth. Which makes me think back to Athens and the rise of democracy. At least since Athens, the poor have rebelled and demanded a stronger say in government and fairer distribution of wealth. So what is new about Fabianism?

It would be the negative meaning of conspiracy to think thoughts of social and economic change can be secretly embedded in a society. Are these ideas different from Christianity or democracy coming from Athens? The notion of democracy is we can discuss these things, and come to agreement about the best way to organize ourselves. It is a social order that works pretty well, with problems developing when a group of people are excluded from governing power, except economically. That economic factor is so troublesome. Athens protected private property because doing so improved their ability to meet human needs than communal living did. There is a stronger motivation factor when we have private property instead of communal property.

While Martin McGuinness was a former leader of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, he later became Sinn Féin's chief negotiator in the peace process. Engaging in dialogue is not the same thing as fostering political terrorism. — thewonder

That is certainly true! But what makes those in power willing to listen and share power? The Steampunk movement is the result of disappointment about industrialization leaving so many in desperate poverty. We are struggling to overcome this problem and I think we have made great progress, but I am not sure the democratic party is managing the economic problem well at this moment in time. Good intentions are no guarantee of good results. But we can not maintain the status quo either because we must adjust to changes. And so it is throughout human history. What makes those in power willing to listen and share power?

Fabian influence. Why was this “Open Conspiracy” or “Fabian Conspiracy” so influential? The Fabian founders were well-off Liberals (members of the British Liberal Party) with close links to industrial interests, such as owners of railway/railroad companies, steel plants and chocolate manufacturers. G B Shaw who was a highly influential Fabian leader, wrote “Socialism for Millionaires” in which he advised wealthy personalities of the day to use their wealth for social causes. Carnegie and Rockefeller were among those “converted”. For example, the Fabians’ London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) which was established to promote socialism, had more than 30% of its expenses covered by Rockefeller foundations while also receiving funding from the British Chamber of Commerce, bankers, financiers and other sources. — Apollodorus

How many of those leaders experienced terrible poverty as children? H. G. Wells is one of them who was malnourished and suffered a lot because of poverty and stupid laws that enforced suffering on others, such as his mother having to work as a domestic to support her family when her husband was disabled, and her employer having the power to prevent her from living with her children and husband while she was employed.

First for the word "conspiracy". It originates from Latin meaning to breathe together, which becomes agreement and later a secret plot .... There is a stronger motivation factor when we have private property instead of communal property. — Athena

Correct. I've slightly edited the OP (2nd post, actually) to clarify how Fabianism has come to be associated with "conspiracy". The Fabians were attacked from the start by other socialists, from leading ideologists like Engels to common folk, for being disingenuous and self-interested or "unprincipled spiders" as some called them.

And yes, property is a powerful motivating factor in all political movements. Leading Fabians, although members of the Liberal Party, were often Marxists and some still are. However, they realized early on that abolition of private property as advocated by strict Marxists wasn't too attractive a proposition to the common people. Farmers and other land owners were definitely against the idea and ever factory workers wanted higher wages in the hope to one day own their own property.

So, the Fabians who were highly intelligent and educated people, were forced to modify their political program in order to accommodate the interests of the majority and win the support of bankers and industrialists whose aim was to water down the more revolutionary currents of socialism. This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition" and were viewed by other socialists with suspicion and disdain. But the Fabians' intellectual work, their influence on education, and the support they enjoyed from economic interests enabled them to outmaneuver other socialists and impose their own agenda.

The internal situation within the British Labour Party, where right-wing Fabians are at loggerheads with left-wing unionists, is a microcosm of the wider tensions and conflicts between Fabianism and other socialist currents throughout the world.

But, as I said, there is quite a bit to explore and assimilate. So, do take your time. There is no rush.

How many of those leaders experienced terrible poverty as children? H. G. Wells is one of them who was malnourished and suffered a lot because of poverty and stupid laws that enforced suffering on others — Athena

Wells, yes. But he was not a founder of the Fabian Society, he joined much later.

Beatrice Webb was the daughter of railroad magnate Richard Potter, chairman of the Great Western and Grand Trunk Railways of England and Canada. It was people like Potter who helped finance the Fabians' London School of Political Science and Economics (LSE) and other Fabian initiatives that cost millions to fund.

I am also willing to posit that something similar could be happening with Eugenics and the Labour Party. — thewonder

Well, it can't be ruled out. Eugenics did form a big element in Fabian ideology. In those days a lot of people were into Darwinism and Eugenics and the Fabians were no different. Certainly Wells advocated population control and redistribution and this involves some elements of Eugenics. So, hypothetically speaking, Labour could be motivated by Eugenics in its current policies? But I'm not an expert on it, and I haven't looked into that.

I was talking about the way Fabianism came to exert a lot of influence on politics, education and culture. But if you have any sources on Labour's links with Eugenics, do let us know, by all means.

It is important to understand that the Fabians were middle class. There were exceptions, but it would be factually wrong to see the Fabians as poor and destitute working-class people. At origin, they were members of the Liberal Party, the party of new money (as opposed to the Tories who were the party of old money). That was precisely why they founded the Labour Party with the help of the unions, because poor working-class people didn't trust them and the middle-class Fabians didn't stand a chance of influencing the labor movement without an ostensibly "working-men party" like Labour.

Fabian leaders like the Webbs (who were the true leaders, not Wells) held dinner parties at home with the rich and powerful of the day as related by Beatrice Webb in her diary and memoirs. They had a dining club called "The Coefficients" ( I think Quigley mentions that as well) where they met and discussed their plans with bankers, gold and diamond producers, and powerful politicians with whom they coordinated their activities, like Lord Haldane, Edward Grey, Lord Milner and many others.

Incidentally, the term "champagne socialist" was applied to Fabians like Ramsay McDonald, the first Labour Prime Minister, who had married into money and, like other Fabians, was regarded as a traitor to working-class interests.

As I said, the tension between the Labour right wing revolving around the Fabian Society and the left wing revolving around unions is still there and for very good historical and ideological reasons that need to be understood.

Edward Carpenter was not exactly a wealthy industrialist. His family was wealthy and left him a nice inheritance, but he was not an industrialist. But was sensitive and imagined a better world much as Henry Ford's son did. He was a romantic homosexual attracted to working-class men.

His sexual preferences were for working men: "the grimy and oil-besmeared figure of a stoker" or "the thick-thighed hot coarse-fleshed young bricklayer with a strap around his waist". — Wikipedia

He was strongly influenced by Walt Whitman and the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. He clearly saw in these a sense of purpose and devoted himself to that.

In May 1889, Carpenter wrote a piece in the Sheffield Independent calling Sheffield the laughing-stock of the civilized world and said that the giant thick cloud of smog rising out of Sheffield was like the smoke arising from Judgment Day, and that it was the altar on which the lives of many thousands would be sacrificed. He said that 100,000 adults and children were struggling to find sunlight and air, enduring miserable lives, unable to breathe and dying of related illnesses.[25] — Wikipedia

Corbyn supports united Ireland, which, though the only part in Northern Ireland to do so completely is Sinn Féin, is dissimilar from supporting terrorist attacks on the part of the IRA. He has said that he has maintained links with members of Sinn Féin in order to bring a resolution to the conflict, which, though I do expect for him to be the kind of left-wing politician to occasionally give the Provisional IRA more of the benefit of the doubt than they truly deserve, I do happen to believe. Meeting with affiliates of the IRA so as to bring about the Good Friday Agreement is not the same thing as meeting them in a tacit support of their actions. He did invite Gerry Adams to promote his autobiography following the Birmingham hotel bombing, which may have been ill-timed, but Adams doesn't seem to have had anything to do with bombing, aside from that he has been instrumental within the peace process. While Sinn Féin and the various organizations that have adopted the moniker, the IRA, particularly the Provisional Irish Republican Army, are not the same organizations, what I don't doubt is that there are any number of connections between them. For a Labour politician to meet with members of Sinn Féin so as to facilitate the peace process, even if they support a united Ireland, which I do as well, is not akin to condoning terrorism and actually quite to the contrary. This notion that Conservative politicians had the in the United Kingdom that The Troubles could have been brought to an end without engaging in dialogue with members of Sinn Féin, if not particularly those connected to the IRA or even members of the IRA, themselves, is entirely absurd, if not offhandedly immature. Confliction resolution necessitates that people are willing to talk to each other. Any person is taught this after having gotten into their first fight.

the party of new money (as opposed to the Tories who were the party of old money). — Apollodorus

That seems like an important statement. Which generation enjoyed that new money and what changed that made that new wealthy posible?

"gold and diamond producers"? That comes from Africa. Exploration and trade were behind the new economic opportunity, and that is a totally different economy than farms, serfs, and slaves. The new economy involves wars of conquest and leads to the first and second world wars. Wars are costly and demand manpower. The colonial economy didn't survive the world wars but industry was able to pick the labor and continue creating new wealth. Mass production requires mass markets and now a growing middle class becomes more important to economic growth. This is a lot of rethinking social and economic matters.

As I said, the tension between the Labour right wing revolving around the Fabian Society and the left wing revolving around unions is still there and for very good historical and ideological reasons that need to be understood. — Apollodorus

I am going to have to work on figuring that out. Can you say more about it? What are the important power centers of both? I have always ignored left and right talk so I really do not have the necessary concepts.

While the sentiment you have expressed seems fairly amicable, I fail to take your meaning. I was making a clarification about Corbyn's alleged IRA contacts. He hadn't established contacts with whomever it was in either Sinn Féin or the Provisional Irish Republican Army so as to bolster support for acts of terrorism; to the contrary, he had done so in order to facilitate the peace process. I am both a Pacifist and somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those who live in Northern Ireland and, therefore, care that the peace process is effective. As, though I assume for Apollodorus's take on such matters to merely be reflective of the political ecology of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, mistaken, I think that the characterization of politicians who have facilitated dialogue with any number of parties to bring about the Good Friday Agreement as having made a tacit sanction of political terrorism to disrupt the peace process, I felt a need to make a clarification.

I don't understand what this has to do with the Democratic Party.

Despite your clearly confused interpretation of Jeremy Corbyn's relationship to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, which the citation of The Telegraph and The Daily Mail as reputable sources of information upon such matters is evidence of, I am beginning to suspect that this thread is about something other than what I originally thought that it was, and, so, apologize for my wanton diatribes by that account.

Of the Yippies, there were a series of debates between Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, who coined the term, "Yuppie", to describe young urban professionals. Rubin suspected that, upon figuring out how to get most of the young population to consider them favorably, they ought to just make enough money to take over the world so that someone else didn't do so in their stead. Though Rubin is kind of the classical example of a sell-out and I do feel so inclined to agree with Hoffman, I do think that he had a certain point to make. Were the music industry, for instance, to have been taken over by the likes of the Yippies, I think that you would a considerable improvement within Pop Culture and even just the social ecology of, at least, American society today.

There's also that I'm of such an inclination to think that there's just nothing wrong with being kind of a libertine. If this or that "champagne socialist" wants to live it up, what's it to me?

As an independent musician, I've noticed a kind of poverty of Do-It-Yourself sentiment in that, without there being anyone who runs a decent establishment, there is no place for artists like me to play. In so far that a person is not abusive with their wealth, I don't have any qualms with them having it. In so far that they use it cultivate a culture that is to the general benefit of humanity, I don't see why people, in good faith, can't accept and take this well and agree that their doing so is, perhaps, somewhat requisite for the world to become a better place to live. I don't harbor any illusions of philanthropy, though.

Despite your clearly confused interpretation of Jeremy Corbyn's relationship to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, which the citation of The Telegraph and The Daily Mail as reputable sources of information upon such matters is evidence of ... — thewonder

I think the confusion is yours, not mine. I don't care about Corbyn in the least. I was simply saying how he was portrayed in the press and why he acquired a negative image among voters which exacerbated the problems Labour already had, as explained above. Nothing more and nothing less.

The same applies to McDonald. His description as a "champagne socialist" was merely an illustration of how Fabians were seen by other socialists. Fabian authors admit that Fabians weren't highly regarded by working-class people. They were middle-class intellectuals with whom working-class people couldn't easily connect or identify. That's why Fabians preferred to quietly sit on the Labour executive committee and draft policy papers whilst working-class members like McDonald and Keir Hardie were used as a front or bait, if you prefer.

That seems like an important statement. Which generation enjoyed that new money and what changed that made that new wealthy posible? — Athena

Well, you need to know a bit about how the British Empire worked. The Tories were the party of "old money", i.e., upper-class, landed aristocracy. The Liberals were "new money", i.e., middle-class bankers and industrialists who made their fortune from investments in the colonial possessions especially in Africa where gold, diamonds, and other natural resources were being discovered and developed. The Fabians being middle-class Liberals, they had close connections to the Liberal bankers and industrialists described by Quigley in The Anglo-American Establishment. After all, they were members of the same party and they knew each other.

Regarding Labour, it is sufficient to know for now that it was founded by the Fabian Society and trade unions who had different interests but entered into an alliance of convenience with one another for political expediency. So, basically, the Labour right wing is led by the Fabian Society and other Fabian groups mainly based in London, whereas the Labour left wing is led by unions like Unite which are often headed by people from further north, e.g. Liverpool, Manchester, etc. For example, Unite boss Len McCluskey, Jeremy Corbyn's ally, and opponent of the Fabian right, who is a Marxist from Liverpool.